(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 claims to be the trade Union of the Officers of the respondent no. 1, United Bank of India. The petitioners 2 to 6 are members of the petitioner no. 1 and also are Officers of the respondent no. 1 Bank.
(2.) WITH effect from 14th February, 1970, undertakings of fourteen existing banks including United Bank of India were transferred to and vested in the corresponding New Banks under the banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. The entire capital of the said Corresponding banks stood vested in and allotted to the central Government. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 19 of the said Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, the Board of Directors 94 of the respondent No. 1, Bank, have purported to make United Bank of India officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter briefly called conduct Regulations, 1976) and the United Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, (hereinafter briefly called Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 ). Both the Regulations were to come into force on 1st January, 1977. On July 13, 1979, the petitioners have obtained the present Rule, Inter-alia, challenging the validity of the aforesaid Conduct Regulations, 1976 and of the Discipline and appeal Regulations,. 1976 of the United bank of India, the respondent no. 1.
(3.) MR. Pranab Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, has submitted that, the aforesaid two Regulations are ultra vires sections 12 (2) and 19 of the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking) Act, 1970. According to mr. Chatterjee, the respondent No. 1, bank, had no authority to alter the existing terms and conditions of its officers by framing the aforesaid two Regulations. Mr. Chatterjee has, next submitted, that, the said two Regulations) were invalid also because the condition-precedents mentioned in Section 19 of the said Act for making regulations have not been fulfilled. Mr. Chatterjee has thirdly submitted that the provisions of the said Conduct Regulations, 1978 and the 'discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 hereinafter mentioned are Repugnant to articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and are, therefore, invalid and un in forceable. Mr. Subrata Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate on behalf of the respondent no. 1, Bank, and Mr. Somendra Chandra Bose, learned Advocate on behalf of the Union of India, have, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent no. 1, under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 had authority to alter the terms and conditions of employment of its officers and the two impugned Regulations have been duly made by the United Bank of india after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and, with the previous sanction of the central - Government. Therefore, the. . two Regulations are not ultra vires sections 12 (2) and 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970. The learned advocates for the respondents have also submitted that the provisions of the said conduct Regulations and Discipline and appeal Regulations, 1976 are broadly similar to other Regulations applicable to government servants and employees of various public undertakings. None of these provisions are ultra vires Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution and they impose reasonable restrictions upon the officers of the respondent no. 1, Bank.;