LexINDIAN BANK versus K. USHA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
INDIAN BANK
v.
K. USHA AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
JANUARY 28, 1998
B
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 :
Ss.2, 18(1) 18(3), 45(9) and (45(14)-Ama/gamation of Thanjavur
C Bank with Indian Bank-Claim for appointment on compassionate ground
by dependents of employees who died while in service with transferor bank-
Scheme of Amalgamation indicating no provision on this topic-Claim based
on a Settlement entered into in 1982 between the Union of employees of
transferor bank and its management under s.2{p) of Industrial Disputes Act-
D Settlement not arrived at in conciliation proceedings-Held the Settlement
u/s 2(p) rlw s. 18(1) of l.D.Act would get transmitted to transferee bank on
combined operation of s.19(J)(d) of Specific Relief Act and s.2 of the Ac/-
Transferee bank liable to appoint claimants in service-Industrial Disputes
Act, I 947-S.s.2(p), 18(1) and 18(3)-
!Spec/fie Relief Act, I 963-S.19(/)(d)-
Service Law-Appointment on compassionate ground
E
The Bank ofThanjavur Limited was amalgamated with the Indian Bank
with effect from 20th February 1990 in accordance with the Scheme of
Amalgamation framed under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act,
1949. Clause 2 of the scheme provided for transfer of the property rights
and assets of the Bank of Thanjavur (transferor bank) to the Indian Bank
F . (transferee bank) and prescribed that all the corresponding liablilities, duties
and obligations of the transferor bank would become liabilities, duties and
obligations of the transferee bank. Clause 10 of the Scheme provided that
all the employees of the transferor bank would continue in service and be
deemed to have been appointed by the transferee bank at the same
G remuneration and the terms and conditions of service as were applicable to
such employees immediately before the close of business on 19th August
1989.
The respondents, the heirs and legal representatives of the employees
who died while in service of the Bank ofThanjavur, claimed appointments
H on compassionate ground on the basis of an agreement of the year 1982
358
INDIAN BANK v. USHA
359
entered into between the Union of the employees of the transferor bank with A
-
f..
its Manageme11t under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
-··
albeit the Settlement was not arrived at during the conciliation proceedings.
The appellant bank refused to entertain the claims. The writ petitions filed
'.
by the respondents were allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court
.....,,...-
holding that they were entitled to get the benefit of the Settlement which was B
~-
binding not only on the transferor bank but also on its successor in interest
namely the appellant bank. Since the appellant bank rejected the claim of the
.,
respondents Single Judge issued writ of Mandamus directing the appellants
bank to appoint the respondents on compassi.onate ground. The writ appeals
of the bank were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Aggrieved, the Indian Bank filed the present appeals.
c
It was contended for the appellant bank that the High Court erred in
issuing mandamus to the appellant to appoint the respondents in service. It
was submitted that the Scheme of Amalgamation limited the liability of the
transferor bank oQly to the extent provided in Clause IO which pertained to
~-
the then existing employees of the transferor bank and did not cover the D
liability under the 1982 Settlement to provide compassionate appointment to
the heirs of deceased employees of the transferor bank, and thus, in view of
sub-sections (9) and (14) of S.45 of the Banking Regulation Act, the Scheme
by incorporating Clause 10 had made a contrary provision on the topic of
granting compassionate appointment; that in any case the 1982 settlement E
arrived at between the management of the transferor bank and the Union of
its employees would only bind the parties to the settlement as per Section
18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and could not be enforced against the
transferee bank; and that even if the respondents were found to be eligible
to get employment, the High Court could not ha~e issued the directions to
appoint them in the absence of vacancies available.
F
~
_.
For the respondents it was contended that on a conjoint reading of
Section 2 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Section 19(1 )( d) of the
Specific Relief Act, the 1982 Settlement would be binding on the appeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.