SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 592

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., Yogeshwar Dayal, J.
Union Of India
Versus
M.Gopalakrishnaiah
Case No. : 9377 of 1994
Date of Decision : 5/23/94
Advocates Appeared: Ahmed Altaf : Anand B. : Anand R.K. : Mahajan Y.P. : Parameswaran P. : Parmeshwaran P. : Sawhney L. : Srivastava A.K. : Vachher A.

Advocates:
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, A.VACHHER, Altaf Ahmed, B.ANAND, L.SAHAY, P.PARMESHVARAN, R.K.Anand, Y.P.MAHAJAN

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Boards of nationalised banks - Protection to permanent employees of State - Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause the central government shall have right to terminate term of office of whole time Director including Managing Director at any time before expiry of term specified that sub-clause by giving to him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months salary and allowances in lieu of notice and whole-time Director including the Managing Director shall also have the right to relinquish his office at any time before expiry of term specified under that sub-clause by giving to the central government notice of not less than three months in writing – Held Constitution bench court Delhi Transport Congress dealing with Regulation Delhi Transport Authority Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations took the view that the said Regulation was arbitrary unfair unjust and unreasonable and opposed to public policy as it affected the services of permanent employees of Corporation - In this judgment the Constitution bench upheld earlier judgment of this court in central Inland Water Transport question is whether the reasonings of the aforesaid decisions which applied to permanent employees could be extended to Directors on the Boards of nationalised banks on their tenure appointments under the Scheme which give reciprocal rights to both central government and Directors on Board of nationalised banks to terminate their appointments after three months notice or pay in lieu - IT is one thing to give a protection to permanent employees of State Undertakings similar to employees of the government under Article of Constitution to avoid arbitrariness but would same criteria have to be applied when couer deal with Directors in nationalised banks appointment whereof is contractual and for fixed tenure - Judges of the High court applied ratio of decision of aforesaid Supreme court judgments and that sub-clause of clause of Scheme is ultra vires Article of Constitution – Order accordingly

(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) HEARD. Interim stay of the implementation of the impugned order of the High court.

(3) THE question which arises in this appeal is whether sub-clause (1-A) of clause 8 in Ch. II of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme), which is applicable to Directors on the Boards of various nationalised banks, is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution or not.

(4) THE relevant part of clause 8 of the Scheme reads as follows:

"8. Term of office and remuneration of a whole-time Director including Managing Director.(1 A whole-time Director including the Managing Director, shall devote his whole time to the affairs of the nationalised bank and shall hold office for such term not exceeding five years as the central government may after consultation with the Reserve Bank specify and shall be eligible for reappointment.

(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (1 the central government shall have the right to terminate the term of office of a whole time Director, including the Managing Director, at any time before the expiry of the term, specified under that sub-clause by giving to him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months salary and allowances in lieu of notice; and the whole-time Director including the Managing Director, shall also have the right to relinquish his office at any time before, the expiry of the term specified under that sub-clause by giving to the central government notice of not less than three months in writing.

(1-B) Any reference to a whole-time Director, including the Managing Director in sub-clause (I-A) shall be construed as including a reference to the person holding office as such at the commencement of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Second Amendment) Scheme, 1976.

(2 * * *

(3 * * *

(4 The central government may, if it is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of the nationalised bank so to do, remove a whole-time Director including the Managing Director from office: Provided that no such removal shall be made except after-

(A) consultation with the Board, and

(B) giving a reasonable opportunity to the whole-time Director, including the Managing Director, of showing cause against the proposed action."

(5) THE services of the respondent were terminated by order dated 19-7-1993 which reads as under:

"IN exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (1-A) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the central government hereby terminate the term of office of Shri M. Gopalakrishnaiah, Executive Director, Bank of Maharashtra with effect from the date of service of this notice on him and direct that he shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his salary and admissible allowances for a period of three months in lieu of the period of notice. The payment of allowances will, however, be subject to the condition in which such allowances are otherwise admissible."

(6) THE central government instead of proceeding under clause 8(4 decided to terminate the tenure of appointment of the respondent under clause 8(1-A) of the Scheme.

(7) THE Constitution bench of this court in Delhi Transport Corpn. v. DTC Mazdoor Congress dealing with Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 took the view that the said Regulation was arbitrary, unfair, unjust and unreasonable and opposed to public policy as it affected the services of permanent employees of the Corporation. In this judgment, the Constitution bench upheld the earlier judgment of this court in central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly. The question is whether the reasonings of the aforesaid decisions which applied to permanent employees could be extended to the Dire


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top