The duty of secrecy imposed on banks is not absolute and may be subject to exceptions, particularly in cases involving public interest or legal obligations. Courts have the power to seek information from banks in such cases.

JAGANNADHA RAO, C.J.:- This Writ Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in OP 13268 of 1991-D dated 19-12-1991. The Writ Petitioner, Kattabomman Transport Corporation Limited, is the appellant and is a public sector undertaking of the State of Tamil Nadu. The Writ petition was filed for directing the respondents herein, namely, the State Bank of Travancore, Zonal Office, Trivandrum and the Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Kollankode branch, Kanyakumari District to furnish the details mentioned in Ext. P3 letter of the appellant dated 6-8-1991. The validity of the letter of the first respondent, Ext. P4 dated 10-9-1991 is also under challenge.

2. The third respondent herein, one Yohannan Rajaian has been impleaded as the third respondent suo motu by us by our detailed order dated 23-3-1992.

3. The following are the facts of the case. Yohannam Rajaian third respondent was an employee of the appellant-Transport Corporation. He was dismissed from service in 1975. Action was taken under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules which were applicable to the employees of the appellant-Transport Corporation which, as already stated, is a public sector undertaking of the State of Tamil Nadu. Questioning the order of dismissal, the third respondent filed a Writ Petition, OP 7486 of 1990 in the Madras High Court. A learned single Judge of that Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement and also directed that the third respondent shall be entitled to monetary benefits only from the date of reinstatement and not for the anterior period. Third respondent was to be entitled to service seniority. Against the said judgment, the third respondent preferred WA 1269 of 1990 in the Madras High Court. The said Writ Appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of that Court on 23-1-1991. The question before the Division Bench was whether the third respondent was entitled to back-wages from 4-4-1975, the date of dismissal or from the date of reinstatement. When the matter came up before the Division Bench, it was not clear whether the third respondent was gainfully employed subsequent to 4-4-1975. The Division Bench, therefore, passed an order as follows :

"After giving our thoughtful consideration to this matter, we allow this appeal and set aside the direction of the learned single Judge restricting the monetary benefit to the appellant only from the date of reinstatement and direct that he shall also be entitled to monetary benefits for the entire period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. This order, however, is subject to the condition that the appellant shall file an undertaking supported by an affidavit before the third respondent to the effect that in the event it is established that the appellant had, after the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement, been gainfully employed throughout or for any part of the period, then he shall refund the monetary benefit received by him to respondent No. 3 to the extent of the benefit received by him on account of such employment. The undertaking and the affidavit, shall be filed before the third respondent within two weeks from today, shall remain valid for a period of one year from today during which period, respondent No. 3 may put up the claim, if any, for reimbursement. The backwages due to the appellant shall be paid to him within six weeks from today. With the aforesaid direction, the writ appeal succeeds; but without any order as to costs."

4. It will, therefore, be seen that the Division Bench directed that the third respondent would be entitled to back-wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement subject to the condition that the third respondent filed an undertaking supported by an affidavit before the appellant-Transport Corporation to the effect that in the event it is "established" that the third respondent had, after the date of