IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 30011 of 2003(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.BALU, MADHAVA MANDIRAM, AYANIMOODU,VEDIVACHANKOVIL.P.O., BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (FORMERLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT IND BANK HOUSING LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. IND BANK HOUSING LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 480, ANNA SALAI, NANDANAM, CHENNAI-600 035. 2. INDIAN BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600 001. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R2 SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R2 SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 30011/2003. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.5.2.96. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.5.2.97 OF R1. P3. COPY OF THE PAY SLIP FOR JUNE 2003. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.9.7.03 OF MANAGING DIRECTOR OF R1. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDING THE D.D. DTD.9.7.03. P6. COPY OF THE STATEMENT CONTAINING THE POSITION ON ICD ACCOUNTS. P7. COPY OF THE AUDITED FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.03. P8. COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.22.1.01. P9. COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.5.2.2001. P10. COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.12.12.01. P11. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.3.3.2002. P11A. COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.2.11.2002 PUBLISHED IN ECONOMIC TIMES. P12. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.22.3.99. P13. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.12.10.2000. P14. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BY THE BANK. P15. COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM IN THE HINDU BUSINESS LINE DTD.5.5.03. P16. COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM DTD.11.3.2003. P17. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.NIL BEFORE THE MINISTER OF FINANCE. P18. COPY OF THE LETTER TO MINISTER OF STATE FOR DEFENCE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS. P19. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.18.2.2003. P20. COPY OF THE LETTER TD.5.3.2003. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30011 of 2003 ================== Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the 1st respondent company, which, according to the petitioner, is a subsidiary of the 2nd respondent- Indian Bank, incorporated for the purpose of issue of housing loan. However, because of heavy financial trouble faced by the 1st respondent company, the petitioner's services were terminated by Exts.P4 and P5. The petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent is proposed to be merged with the 2nd respondent bank and, therefore, the petitioner should be absorbed in the 2nd respondent bank. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of certiorari of any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P4 and P5 and quash them. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent Bank to absorb the petitioner in the service of the 2nd respondent consequent on the merger of the 1st respondent Company with the 2nd respondent Bank. iv) declare that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in the 2nd respondent Bank in the event of the merger of the 1st respondent Company with the 2nd respondent Bank.” 2. But the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent now submits that the expected merger never took place and the present position is w.p.c.30011/2003 2 that the High Court of Madras has, in W.A.Nos.1134 and 1372 of 2004 and W.P.Nos.21120 and 25330 of 2003, accepted the fact that there is no merger. Therefore, the petitioner cannot press for prayer Nos.iii and iv, which position of law is not disputed by the petitioner. As far as prayer Nos. ii & ii are concerned, the petitioner has no case that the financial position of the company is not as stated in Ext.P4. The petitioner's services were dispensed with only because, on account of the financial position, they cannot afford to continue the petitioner in service. Insofar as that financial position of the 1st respondent is not disputed, the petitioner cannot seek other prayers also. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge