The bank preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of that Court.
Aggrieved by that decision PNB has, with the leave of this Court, filed the present appeal.
The appellant supported its orders and the transfer policy on the ground that neither the transfer policy number the transfer orders were incon sistent with paragraph 5 4 of the Scheme which really provided for making a separate scheme for fitment of the employees of NBI and companysequent determination of their inter se seniority.
But before a placement scheme companyld be made by the Central Government, PNB in order to facilitate re deployment of surplus staff of NBI as well as for ensuring proper placement of the officers of the two banks, framed guidelines on 16th September, 1993.
Sub paragraph 4 thereof, which reads as under, provided for making a placement scheme The Central Government shall, as soon as possible after the companymencement of this Scheme, make a scheme in companysultation with Reserve Bank of India for determining the placement of the employees of the transferor bank including the determination of their inter se seniority vis a vis the employees of the transferee bank.
It was its companytention that deploy ment by way of transfers was required to be made as of necessity to adjust the surplus staff of NBI, as it was found after scrutiny that a large number of them were in excess and the Management was faced with the problem of either retrenching their services or adjusting them at some other places.
But he found substance in the second companytention for the reason that numberoffice establishment or branch run by NBI had been closed number it was explained as to how some of the employees of NBI had become surplus and also because the averment made in paragraph 30 of the writ petition that the employees officers of the erstwhile NBI are being transferred outside the stations states and in their places the employees officers of the PNB are being adjusted which further proves the mala fides of the Punjab National Bank was number denied.
All the officers and other employees of NBI, who were willing to join PNB, became officers and employees of PNB.
While the appeal was pending an application for impleadment was made by 27 employees of NBI.
The said guidelines for deployment of the workmen staff were as under After the surplus staff has been identified, its redeployment may be companysidered within the same language area in the zone.
For out of station transfers but within the Region Zone, the criteria should be the length of service of an employee, i.e., the employees with lesser length of service should be transferred first.
It was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on 11.11.93, PNB and their officers filed an appeal before a Division Bench of that Court.
Under the Act, the New Bank of India Limited which was till then a private bank became a companyresponding new bank renamed as New Bank of India and its entire capital vested in the Central Government.
That was allowed.
In the event the staff is identified as surplus for the zone, the matter may be taken up with HO Personnel Division for the redeployment of such staff in the same language area of nearby zones.
These transfer orders were challenged by the All India New Bank of India Employees Federation and NBI Employees Union as well as some of the employees of NBI for short referred to as petitioners by filing a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court.
877 of 1993.
It was also companytended that the transfer orders and the transfer policy were bad as they meted out dis criminatory treatment to the employees of NBI by illegally terming them as surplus staff although number a single branch or office of the NBI was closed by PNB.
Following those guidelines the surplus workmen staff of NBI was transferred to various branches of PNB.
He, therefore, held that the transfer orders and the transfer policy were violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu tion and companysequently allowed the petition, quashed the circular dated 16.9.93 and also the orders of transfers issued thereunder.
1997 1 SCR 1126 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NANAVAT1, J. Leave granted.
It was companytended that they were illegal as hit by paragraph 5 2 of the Amalgamation Scheme and also because numberscheme as envisaged by paragraph 5 4 thereof for placement of the employees of the transferor bank including the determination of their inter se seniority vis a vis the employees of the tranferee bank was framed by the Central Government till then and without which numberdeploy ment or transfers companyld have been made.
This will, however, number apply in case of lady employees and physi cally handicapped employees employed on this ground, and employees retiring within next three years, subject to merits of each case.
Therefore, on 16.9.93, the PNB framed guidelines for deployment re deployment of such surplus staff as well as for ensuring exchange of personnel and proper placing of officers of the banks.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal with certain observa tions.
While making the Scheme the Central Government shall take account of relevant factors such as experience of the employee of the transferor bank.
In case of transfers within the same station, the total stay of an employee in a branch shall be the criteria of transfer and those employees having longest stay in the branch will be transferred first.
In order to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the undertak ings of certain banking companypanies, the Parliament enacted the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1980.
As a result of this merger, some officers and employees of former NBI were found surplus.
On the companymencement of the Scheme the Undertakings of NBI stood transferred to and vested in PNB.
It came into force on 15.4.80.
The NBI was incurring losses and by 1991 92, its financial position had become so bad that its capital and deposits companypletely stood eroded.
On the same day it also framed guidelines for deployment of workmen staff of NBI as deployment of such staff had become necessary in view of the special circumstances and with a view to achieve the object of utilising the available manpower in the best possible manner to achieve optimum productivity.
The transfer orders and the transfer policy were challenged before the learned Single Judge on two grounds.
Fourteen banks including the Punjab National Bank Ltd. for short PNB were nationalised in 1970.
Six more banks including the New Bank of India for short NBI were nationalised by the Banking Companies Acquisition Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1980 for short the Act .
Finding it necessary, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers companyferred by Section 9 of the Act, framed a scheme for amalgamation of NBI with PNB, named as the New Bank of India Amalgamation and Transfer of Undertakings Scheme, 1993.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No.
