Back
1999 Supreme(All) 1626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
P. K. Jain, J.
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Appellant
Versus
S.M.CHOPRA - Respondents
Second Appeal 1494 Of 1998
Decided On : 10/12/1999
G.N.Verma, KRISHNA MOHAN, Shashi Nandan
The contract of employment of a bank employee can be enforced against the bank even if the bank is a statutory body.
Headnote:
The plaintiff, a bank employee, filed a suit against the defendant bank for a declaration that his resignation was obtained by coercion and was voidable, and for payment of arrears of salary and other benefits. The trial court and the lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a bank employee, alleged that his resignation was obtained by coercion and was voidable. He filed a suit against the defendant bank for a declaration to that effect, and for payment of arrears of salary and other benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's resignation was obtained by coercion and was voidable. The Court also held that the plaintiff was entitled to payment of arrears of salary and other benefits.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant bank is a statutory body and whether the contract of employment can be enforced against the defendant bank? 2. Whether relief of declaration that the plaintiff is continuing in service can be granted by the civil court or whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages only? 3. Whether the civil court had power to grant pendente lite and future salary and the decree passed by the appellate court in this regard is erroneous? 4. Whether the facts alleged and established by the evidence on record make out a case of coercion or not?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The defendant bank was a statutory body and the contract of employment could be enforced against it. 2. The relief of declaration that the plaintiff is continuing in service could be granted by the civil court. 3. The civil court had power to grant pendente lite and future salary. 4. The facts alleged and established by the evidence on record made out a case of coercion.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with the modification that the decree with regard to payment of 274 days leave encashment benefits shall be available to the plaintiff only in case he has retired from the service during the pendency of the suit or the subsequent appeals.
( 1 ) THIS secondappeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the IIIrd Additional district Judge, Ghaziabad dated 3. 10. 98 dismissing the first appeal of the appellants and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court in Suit NO. 309 of 1995.
( 2 ) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT S. M. Chopra filed the aforesaid suit for the following substantial reliefs :
(a) That by the decree of this Honble Court it may be declared that the resignation of the plaintiff dated 11. 3. 92 being obtained by the defendants by force, under coercion and without the free consent and will of the plaintiff is illegal and voidable and is not binding on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is continuing in services of the defendants without any effect of the said resignation letter. (b) That by the decree of mandatory injunction, the defendants be directed to deposit all the dues of the plaintiff including the arrears of salary, emoluments and allowances as well as with the amount relating to the encashment of 274 earned leaves w. e. f. 11. 3. 92 in the current account No. 49 of the plaintiff in the Lohia Nagar Branch of the defendants within the time fixed by this honble Court after calculating the same as per bank rules and regulations and to continue to pay the same till the retirement of the plaintiff.
( 3 ) THE plaint allegations relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are that the plaintiff joined services to the defendants bank on 30th August, 1970 at the branch office at Jalandhar in capacity of subordinate staff. Thereafter he continued his services in the bank in various capacities at various branches of the bank. He was promoted from time to time and alt of a sudden without any cause he was transferred to Head Office by letter dated 10. 3. 92 in which it was also mentioned that the responsibilities of the branch till 10. 3. 92 will be of the plaintiff. The said letter dated 10. 3. 92 was issued from the Head Office of the defendants and was addressed to rakesh Malhotra, the then A. R. M. Ghaziabad. Neither any reference number nor letter number was mentioned in the letter nor it was sent directly to the plaintiff. Simultaneously by the said letter Sri Rakesh Malhotra was posted as Senior Manager of the Branch in place of the plaintiff. It was also stated in the said letter that the plaintiff be relieved immediately to report for his further duties at Head Office on the same day, i. e. , on 10. 3. 92 copy of the said letter was handed over to the plaintiff by Sri Rakesh Malhotra on 11. 3. 92 which caused great surprise to the plaintiff. On 11. 3. 92 another letter dated 11. 3. 92 was sent by the Regional Office, Ghaziabad of the defendants to Sri Rakesh Malhotra showing his appointment as Senior Manager at Lohia nagar Branch. Copy of this letter was given to the plaintiff on 11. 3. 92 in the afternoon. The plaintiff felt suspicious of the said letter as they were issued in mysterious circumstances. The plaintiff therefore became confused. Any how in the same state of condition he rushed to the head Office at New Delhi to report himself for further duties and as such he reported there at 4. 30 p. m. on 11. 3. 92. The plaintiff was not assigned any seat or designation in the Head Office either by the concerned authorities or through the said letter. He contacted the Deputy Chief manager (Personnel) to know about the designation and seating arrangement but nothing was told to him except to wait and see. At 4. 45 p. m. the plaintiff was summoned to the cabin of Sri surendra Mohan, the then General Manager of the defendant hank who asked the plaintiff to submit his resignation immediately without any reason or cause. He was also threatened by him of dire consequences on failure to submit the resignation by handing over him to CBI on false ground of committing frauds in the bank services. Besides the General Manager four other persons unknown to the plaintiff were also present at that time in the cabin of General Manager.
