Case: Bank Of Baroda Vs. Rajender Pal Soni

2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.3. It is not necessary to preface the antecedent enquiry conducted against the respondent for misconduct by the Traders Bank which was amalgamated with theSuffice it to state that on June 25, 1986 the respondents service was sought to be terminated by issuance of an order on offering three months pay in lieu of the requisite notice. Instead, the respondent on even date had tendered his resignationto Traders Bank;of the appellant had accepted the resignation on July 2, 1986. Consequently, the respondent had returned the cheque of salary offered to him in lieu of notice on the even date. Under Section 45 of the Banking Companies Regulation Act, 1949 (for short the `Act), the scheme of amalgamation of transferor bank with the appellant bank, with effect from November 20, 1987 (Ex.was initiated. The Central Government had accepted the amalgamation under subsection (7) of Section 45 of the Act with effect from the appointed date viz. May 13, 1988. A scheme in that behalf was approved by Central Government. Clause 10 of the scheme providesthe employees of the transferor bank shall continue in service and be deemed to have been appointed by the transferee bank at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to such employees immediately before the close of business on 20th November, 1987.Para 2 of the notification date May 12, 1988 issued under Section 45(1) read with(2) of Section 45 of the Act envisages, among other things, undertaking of the liabilities with respect to the pending suits, appeal or other legal proceedings of whatever nature by or against the transferor bank arising as on the prescribed date were allowed to continue on thef on the prescribed date any suit, appeal or other legal proceedings of whatever nature by or against the transferor bank is pending, the same shall not abate, or be discontinued or be in any way prejudicially affected, but shall subject to the other provisions of this scheme, be prosecuted and enforced by or against the transferee bank.Admittedly, the respondent had filed the Civil Suit No. 123 of 1989 which is nowas suit No. 61 of 1993 to recover a sum of Rs. 69,680/as the arrears of his pay etc. and also filed Civil Suit No. 122 of 1989 which is now renumbered as Suit No. 63 of 1993, on June 3, 1989 for declaration that the acceptance of resignation by the Traders Bank, viz., the transferor Bank was illegal. Relying upon the notification, the appellant raised preliminary objection after filing written statement to the maintainability of the suit which was rejected by the trial Court. In revision No. 595/94 by order dated March 21, 1995, the Delhi High Court dismissed the revision summarily.

Reasoning:
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that under the Scheme, the assets and liabilities are to be taken over by theand, therefore, the employment of the appellant is one of the liabilities. Judicial review being one of the basic features of the Constitution, he cannot be prevented to avail of the judicial review against theWe find no force in the contention. As far as service conditions are concerned, in view of the specific provision in the Scheme contained in paras 3 and 10 of the notification arrears of salary is a liability to be discharged by theand not of theUnder these circumstances, the suits are clearly not maintainable.