Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.50 seconds)The Banking Regulation Act, 1949
V.T. Khanzode & Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India & Anr on 5 March, 1982
At this stage it would also be appropriate to notice
yet another decision of this Court in the caseV. T.
Khanzodoe and others vs. Reserve Bank of India and Anr.
(1982 2 Supreme Court Cases 7) in which case the Court was
examining again the principle evolved by the Reserve Bank of
India for a combined seniority for different groups of
employees with retrospective effect. The Court observed :-
Section 9 in The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
Section 5 in The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Chairman, Canara Bank, Bangalore vs M. S. Jasra And Ors on 6 March, 1992
Mr. Rao also placed reliance on the
decision of this Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. M.S.
Jasra & Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 484). In the aforoesaid case the
question for consideration was, when some private banks are
amalgamated with the nationalized bank under the provisions
of Banking Regulation Act 1949 can the employees of the
private banks claim to be governed by an age of
superannuation of the transferor bank or they would be
governed by the terms and conditions of service applicable
to the employees of corresponding ranks or status of the
transferee bank. This court answered the question by holding
that the employees would be governed by the terms and
conditions of service of employees of the corresponding rank
of the transferee bank and therefore, their claim to
continue in service upto 60 years is unsustainable.
Analysing the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act 1949
and referring to proviso (ii) to clause (i) of Sub Section
(5) of Section 45 of the said Act this Court held that the
employees of the transferor bank would be entitled to the
terms and conditions of service which the employees of the
corresponding rank and status of the transferee bank were
availing of and therefore the High Court was in error in
allowing the claim of the employees of the transferor bank.
In our considered opinion this decision is of no assistance
to the point which arises for consideration in the present
case. Firstly, the provisions of Banking Regulation Act 1949
has no application in the case in hand. Secondly, the point
in controversy in the case in hand is different than the
point in controversy in that case. Thirdly, Section 9 of the
Acquisition Act confers power on the Central Bank to frame
the Scheme of Amalgamation and in exercise of that power the
Amalgamation Scheme had been framed which came into force on
4th September, 1993 and under clause 5(4) thereof Central
Government had retained power to frame the Scheme for
placement and inter-se seniority between the employees of
the transferor bank with the transferee bank and in
accordance with that power the impugned scheme of placement
had been framed. The question for consideration therefore,
is whether the Central Government had the power to frame the
impugned Placement Scheme? As has been noticed earlier the
expression Placement in clause 5(4) of the Amalgamation
Scheme must be construed to mean re-deployment of the
employees; fitment of those employees in a grade or rank or
cadre in the transferee bank and inter se seniority of those
employees vis-a-vis the employees of the transferee bank in
the cadre or grade. If this meaning is given to the
expression `Placement' in Section 5(4) of the Amalgamation
Scheme and then the impugned provision of clause 4(a)(iii)
and 4(b)(ii) are considered it is difficult for us to accept
the contention of Mr. Rao that it alters the conditions of
service of the employees of the transferor bank and beyond
the power of the Central Govt. It would be appropriate for
us at this stage at the cost of repetition to extract clause
5(4) of the Amalgamation Scheme as well as Clauses 4(a)(iii)
& 4(b)(ii) of the Placement Scheme.
H.L. Trehan And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 22 November, 1988
In Trehan's case (supra) the
question for consideration was whether there can be
deprivation or curtailment of any existing right or benefit
enjoyed by government servant without complying with the
rules of natural justice by giving the servant concerned an
opportunity of being heard. In that particular case the
Caltex Oil Refinery (India) Ltd., a government company (for
short `Coril'), which was acquired by the Government of
India under the provision of the Caltex (Acquisition of
Shares of Caltex Refining (India) Ltd.) Act 17 of 1977, the
Board of Directors of Coril had issued a circular indicating
the perquisites admissible to the Management staff should be
rationalized in the manner stated in the circular. That
circular was challenged by the employees of Corils on the
ground that it curtails the existing rights and advantages
and such circular should not have been therefore, issued
without affording an opportunity of hearing.