IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14839 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- FEDERAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, CENTRAL OFFICE, ALUVA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE BULDG. SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, MUMBAI. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI. P. JACOB VARGHESE, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14839 of 2008(N) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 24/1/2006, ISSUED UNDER SECTION 45(7). EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DATED 17/3/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19/4/2008 MADE BY THE PETITIONER. / TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P (C) .No.14839 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a union of employees of the 1st respondent - bank. In respect of the amalgamation of erstwhile Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad, with the Federal Bank, Government of India framed Ext.P1 - Amalgamation Scheme. The amalgamation scheme contained certain clauses detailing as to how the employees of the transferor bank is to be fitted into in the transferee bank. It also provided that if any doubt or difference arises as to whether the qualifications or experiences of any of the employees are the same as or equivalent to the qualifications and experiences of the other employees of the corresponding rank or status of the transferee bank or as to the procedure or principles to be adopted for the fixation of pay of the said employees in the scales of pay of the transferee bank, the doubt or difference shall be referred to the Reserve Bank of W.P (C) .No.14839 of 2008 - 2 - India whose decision thereon shall be final. The petitioners grievance in this writ petition is that by Ext.P2, the 1st respondent bank has initiated a process of conducting a test and interview to determine the status of the employees of the transferor bank for fitting them into appropriate rank or status in the transferee bank, which according to the petitioner would certainly give rise to a doubt or difference as stipulated in the proviso to clause 8(3) of chapter V of Ext.P1 scheme. Therefore, they have submited Ext.P3 representation before the Reserve Bank of India on the ground that the matter needs to be resolved by the Reserve Bank as provided in the said clause. Since no action was taken by the 2nd respondent on Ext.P3 representation, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the bank submits that in so far as the 1st respondent has not done anything against the interest of the employees of the transferor bank, there is no question of arising of any doubt W.P (C) .No.14839 of 2008 - 3 - or difference regarding the qualifications or experiences or rank or status of the employees of the transferor bank for the purpose of fitting into the appropriate rank or status in the transferee bank. He would submit that what has been undertaken is only a process in the 1st stage of implementing Ext.P1 and the question of doubt or difference arises only when the process is complete for which the 1st respondent has time up to 2009. The Counsel for the 1st respondent undertakes that they would not do anything contradictory to Ext.P1 scheme and if they do so it would be open to the petitioner to approach the Reserve Bank at the appropriate time. According to him this writ petition is premature and no occasion has yet arisen for interference by the Reserve Bank of India under the scheme. After hearing both sides I feel that in view of the categoric assertion given by the Counsel for the respondent it is not necessary to direct the 2nd respondent to consider W.P (C) .No.14839 of 2008 - 4 - Ext.P3 at this juncture. Therefore, this writ petition is closed, recording the undertaking given by the standing counsel for the 1st respondent and leaving it open to the petitioner to take up the matter with the Reserve Bank of India at the appropriate time, when they are aggrieved by any act or omission on the part of the 1st respondent in violation of the provisions of the Ext.P1 scheme. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs