BHAGWAN DASS CHOPRA versus UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1088 · Decided: 17-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHAGWAN DASS CHOPRA 
·r-
v. 
UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 17, 1987 
B 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
't 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 18--Labour Court'lndust-
rial Tribunal-Pending Proceedings-Whether party to proceedings 
entitled to re-open proceedings on being impleaded in place of party 
-:... 
whose rights/ liabilities have been taken over. 
.A 
c 
/ 
"'"'~--
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Order 20 Rule JO-Applicability to 
proceedings pending before Labour Court Industrial Tribunal. 
The appellant joined the service of a Commercial Bank on 
July 12, 1974 and was confirmed on October 1, 1974. His services were 
D terminated by the Bank on February 10, 1975 without assigning any 
reason. On an industrial dispute being raised, the Central Government, 
by its order dated July 9, 1975 referred the dispute, as to whether the Bank 
was justified in terminating his services and if not, what relief the 
workman was entitled to, to the Central Government Industrial 
Tribunal for adjudication. The claim made by the appellant was dis-
¥ 
E puted by the management. In the course of the trial, the appellant 
examined himself and was cross-examined. His evidence was closed on 
21.5.76. 
---
On July 25, 1976 the Bank entered into an agreement with the 
first respondent Bank where under all the assets and liabilities of the erst-
F while Bank were taken over by the respondent Bank. The employees of the 
,-<. 
erstwhile Bank became the employees of the first respondent Bank by 
virtue of cl. 20 of the said agreement. On August 1, 1976 the erstwhile 
Bank totally merged with the first respondent Bank. Thereafter, on 
behalf of the former Bank, five witnesses were examined. 
G 
On an application made by the appellant, first respondent Bank 
was imp leaded as a party, in view of the merger which had taken place. 
Thereafter, the first respondent Bank examined its Personnel Officer 
f-
and formally closed the evidence. 
On October 3, 1978 the first respondent Bank submitted an appli· 
H cation for cross-examining the appellant whose evidence bad been 
1088 
B.D. CHOPRA v. UNITED BANK OF INDIA 
1089 
..j 
closed on May 21, 1976. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the 
A 
ground that since no new plea had been taken there was no ground to 
recall the appellant and subject him to further cross-examination. 
The Tribunal made the award on January 30, 1981 holding that 
the termination of the service of the appellant was not justified and was 
bad, illegal and not enforceable. 
B 
The first respondent Bank filed a writ petition before the High 
Court. A Single Judge set aside the award on the ground that when once 
a person was impleaded as a party to the proceedings, principles of 
natural justice required that he should be given an opportunity to cross-
--4 , examine those witnesses whose evidence had been recorded earlier and 
since the Tribunal had rejected first respondent Bank's prayer to cross-
examine the appellant whose evidence had been closed on May 21, 1976, 
c 
• "'f 
--
the award was liable to be quashed. It, however, remanded the case to 
the Industrial Tribunal to decide the case again after giving an 
opportunity to the first respondent Bank to cross-examine the appellant 
and other witnesses. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant D 
was dismissed by the Division Bench holding that the first respondent 
Bank had the right to cross-examine the appellant on the sole ground 
that it had been impleaded as a party after the merger of the erstwhile 
Bank with the first respondent Bank. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1.1 There is no express provision, corresponding to Rule 
10 Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 providing that in cases 
of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the 
pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be continued by 
E 
or against the person who or upon whom such interest has come or F 
devolved, which is applicable to the proceedings before the Industrial 
Tribunal. [1095B-C] 
1.2 In every case of transfer, merger, takeover or scheme of 
amalgamation, tm rights and liabilities of the transferee Company or 
Corporation shall be the same as that of the tansferor company or G 
corporation, and subject to the terms and conditions of the contract of 
transfer or merger, the scheme of amalgamation and the legal provi-
sions as the case may be under which such a transaction may have taken 
place, the transferee compan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.