Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. This view finds support in a decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of U.P. Bank Employees Union and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., as reported in 1985 Lab. I.C. 337. In paragraph 19 of this judgment, as reported, the Hon'ble Judges referred to the arguments that Section 35B applied to appointment of the topmost executive of the Bank and did not apply to any other post or office. The Full Bench also referred to the argument that if the term 'Manager' was interpreted to mean all officers designated as Managers, practical functioning of the Bank would become difficult apart from the fact that the Reserve Bank of India would be flooded with an work in which it would have no direct interest. There were hundreds of Banks having thousands of branches, each branch having a Manager and the Reserve Bank of India could to be expected to deal with the appointment of all those thousands of Branch Managers. The Court was of the view that the Reserve Bank of India did not control the day to day functioning of the Bank and it only regulated the policy matters and for that it had to deal only with the top brass of the Bank. The Court expressed its views that Section 35-B(1)(b) required the approval of the Reserve Bank of India only in cases of appointment of the topmost executive of the Bank. To counter the aforesaid argument, the learned Counsel for the respondent took me through the provisions of Section 35-B(3) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. A mere reading of this provision indicates that it relates to an act done by a Manager notwithstanding an improper appointment and not the appointment itself of the Manager. Thus, this provision has no bearing with the aforesaid interpretation.