On August 23, 1978 the United Bank of India examined its Personnel Officer Shri R.B. Ray and formally closed the evidence.
The Transferee shall number, however, be bound to take over or absorb in their employment all such staff, assistants and employees against whom any show cause numberice or any action penal or otherwise or any enquiry or any actions and or proceedings whatsoever are pending on 1093 the said date by the Management or by any Tribunal Court or otherwise and or who are on the said date involved or figuring in any such enquiries, actions and or proceedings and against whom any adverse or suspension order finding or decision has been passed or is likely to be passed prior or subsequent to the said date.
a The Transferee shall be under an obligation to take over and absorb and retain with effect from 1st August, 1976 in its employment such staff, employees and assistants hereinafter called the said employees of the Transferor or employed by the Transferor in relation to or in companynection with the said banking business intended to be taken over or acquired by the Transferee as aforesaid who were permanent employees of the Transferor on the said date and on the same terms and companyditions including the remuneration and wages and or other lawful claims as were or are applicable or payable to them on the said date subject to the terms and companyditions as companytained in the Third Schedule hereto PROVIDED ALWAYS that such taking over or absorption of the staff and employees of the Transferor by the Transferee on the same terms and companyditions as hereinbefore mentioned and or also referred to or otherwise mentioned in the Third Schedule hereto shall number however be so companystrued as to include or extend to their or each of their rank and status.
On that date the United Bank of India submitted an application praying that the Bank should be allowed to cross examine the appellant whose evidence had been closed on May 21, 1976.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
The relevant part of clause 20 read thus 20.
928 of 1981.
The learned Single Judge, however, remanded the case to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the case again after giving an opportunity to the United Bank of India to cross examine the appellant and other witnesses.
It also awarded companyts of Rs.
That reply was filed on November 10, 1976.
The claim made by the appellant was disputed by the management.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.1987 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No.67 of 1987.
By its order dated October 17, 1978 the Tribunal dismissed the application of the United Bank of India on the ground that since numbernew plea had been taken there was numberground to recall the appellant and subject him for further cross examination.
If number, what relief is the said workman entitled?
Aggrieved by the said award the United Bank of India filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.
But numbercompromise was reached.
67 of 1987 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
10.2.1975 is justified?
On September 20, 1976 two more witnesses were examined of whom one witness was a former officer of the Narang Bank of India Ltd. On that date the appellant made an application for permission to implead the United Bank of India also as a party in view of the merger which had taken place.
That petition was heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on February 24, 1987.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Tribunal directed that the appellant should be paid his full back wages upto the date of his reinstatement.
The term of the Presiding Officer having expired on December, 1094 1, 1976, a new Presiding Officer was appointed in July, 1977.
The United Bank of India sought further time to file a reply to the appellants application.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Ms. M. Roy, H.K. Puri and H.K. Dutt for the Respondents.
On August 1, 1976 the Narang Bank of India Ltd. was totally merged with the United Bank of India.
On an industrial dispute being raised the Central Government by its order dated July 9, 1975 referred the following dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication Whether the action of the management of the Narang Bank of India, New Delhi in terminating the 1092 services of Shri Bhagwan Dass Chopra w.e.f.
On January 25, 1978 the United Bank of India offered to reinstate the appellant but without backwages and the case was adjourned for some time.
On August 2, 1976 three witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the former Narang Bank of India Ltd., two of whom were employees of the United Bank of India Ltd. by virtue of the agreement of merger referred to above.
On the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties the Industrial Tribunal framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence.
The case was thereafter adjourned to October 3, 1978 for arguments.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH,J. The appellant joined the service of the Narang Bank of India Ltd., New Delhi on July 12, 1974 as a Clerk cum Typist and was companyfirmed in his service on October 1, 1974.
The employees of the erstwhile Narang Bank of India Ltd. became the employees of the United Bank of India, respondent No.
In the companyrse of the trial the appellant examined himself and he was cross examined by the representative of the Narang Bank of India Ltd. Thereafter the evidence of the appellant was closed on 21.5.1976.
The arguments were heard by the Tribunal on November 2, 1978 and an award was given on January 30, 1981 holding that the termination of the services of the appellant was number justified and was bad, illegal, and unenforceable.
The evidence of the Narang Bank of India Ltd. was, however, closed on November 5, 1976.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge the appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal No.
That appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that the United Bank of India 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 1095 Narang Bank of India Ltd. with the United Bank of India.
1 herein, whereunder all the assets and liabilities of the Narang Bank of India Ltd. were taken over by the United Bank of India, respondent No.
On December 1, 1977 the United Bank of India filed its written statement.
On July 25, 1976 the Narang Bank of India Ltd. entered into an agreement with the United Bank of India, respondent No.
2984 of 1987.
The learned Single Judge set aside the award made by the Tribunal 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 examine those witnesses whose evidence had been recorded earlier and since the Tribunal had declined to grant permission to the United Bank of India to cross examine the appellant whose evidence had been closed on May 21, 1976 the award was liable to be quashed.
1 by virtue of clause 20 of the said agreement.
The United Bank of India took time till November 5, 1976 to file its reply to the application made by the appellant.
The Narang Bank of India Ltd., however, terminated his services on February 10, 1975 without assigning any reason.
K. Ramamurthi, Mrs. C. Ramamurthi and M.A. Krishnamoorthy for the Appellant.
1,000 to the appellant.
ii Any such staff employees and assistants of the Transferor whose services have been terminated by the Transferor on or before the said date and or against whom any adverse or suspension order finding or decision has been passed by any person holding any enquiry and or Management of the Transferor and or by any companyrt, Tribunal or otherwise subsequent to the said date but prior to the formal taking over of the said business or assets or properties of the Transferor by the Transferee on the basis of this Agreement.
PROVIDED NEVERTHELESS the Transferee shall take over suspended employee, if any, of the Transferor relating to the said business with effect from the said date and or companydition as herein before mentioned in clause 20 a above in so far as the same shall be applicable if and only if such employee employees is or are finally and ultimately absolved exonerated or acquitted from or of all the charges levelled against him them.
After hearing arguments on the application the Tribunal directed that the United Bank of India should be impleaded as a party and also gave time to the appellant to file an amended statement of claim.
