Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.37 seconds)The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Executive Committee Of Vaish Degree ... vs Lakshmi Narain And Ors on 12 December, 1975
6. Mr. Ganguly next contended that under the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 the Bank in question became a body corporate and under the provisions of Section 12(2) of the said Act, every officer or other employees shall, on the commencement of the said Act hold his office on the same terms and conditions and continue to do so until his appointment is terminated or condition of service is duly altered. Section 19 of the said Act gives powers to the authorities of the Bank to make regulation. Mr. Ganguly contended that unless an institution is created under a statute and owes its existence to a statute, the said institution cannot be called to be a statutory body even if such institution may be governed by some statutory provisions. For this contention, Mr. Ganguly referred to the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain and Ors. 1976-II J.L.J. 163 : A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 888. It was held in the said case that there is distinction between a statutory body and a body not created by a statute but governed by certain statutory provisions. It was also held that before an institution can be said to be a statutory body it must be created by or under the statute and it must owe its existence to a statute. Relying on the aforesaid decision, Mr. Ganguly contended that under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act it was held that unless duly changed, the employees of the Bank will continue to hold their services on the same terms and conditions as were existing on the date of the enforcement of the Act. Mr. Ganguly contended that in the instant case, the service conditions were not framed under any statute but service conditions emanating from the contract between the employer and employee continued under the said Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act.
Ramesh Krishna Rao vs State Bank Of India on 31 January, 1974
Mr. Ganguly also referred to a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court made in the case of Ramesh Krishna Rao v. State Bank of India (1975) Labour and Industrial Cases, 175. It was held in the said case that no declaration to enforce a contract of personal service will be normally granted but there are certain well recognised exceptions to this Rule--One of them being a statutory body acting in breach of a mandatory obligation imposed by the statute. In the said case after examining the service conditions of the said employee of the said Bank, the Bombay High Court held that on a prima. facie reading of the relevant provisions of Section 43(1) read with Section 17 of the State Bank of India Act it appears that the appointment of service of the employee in question was a matter of contract and in such circumstances, a pure master and servant relationship was preserved. Relying on the said decision, Mr. Ganguly contended that the United Bank of India may be a nationalised bank but the service conditions of the employees of the United Bank of India are not governed by any statutory provisions and from the pleadings it will appear that the plaintiff is relying on a term arrived at the said tripartite agreement. Mr. Ganguly contended that in such circumstances, it is quite apparent and evident that the service condition relied on by the plaintiff owes its existence to a contract and it is immaterial whether the Bank in question is a nationalised Bank or not.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.P. Ghose vs Deputy Controller, Reserve Bank Of ... on 20 December, 1963
Mr. Moitra also referred to a Bench decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made in the case of P.S. Gceta v. The Central Bank of India (1978) Labour and Industrial cases 1271, It was held in the said case that whatever may have been the position with regard to the validity of the rules before the Banks were acquired under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under takings) Act, 1970, after such acquisition the Banks had become the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.