MOHAMMED ABDUL NAIM Vs. CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SONALI BANK
SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
Mohammed Abdul Naim
Chairman, Board Of Directors, Sonali Bank
Click here to view full judgement.
MUSTAFA KAMAL,J -
(1.) Leave was granted in this appeal for review of the judgment and order of this Division dated 6-4-95 dismissing the appellant's Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 298 of 1994.
(2.) The appellant was dismissed from service of Sonali Bank on 29-7-86 and his departmental appeal was dismissed on 29-7-87. His application before the Administrative Tribunal, A.T. Case No. 169 of 1987, was allowed by judgment and order dated 10-1-93. The respondents' appeal, A.A.T. Appeal No. 17 of 1993, was allowed by the Administrative Appellate Tribunal on 12-4-94 on the ground that the Sonali Bank, a legal entity capable of suing and of being sued, having not been made a party the appellant's A.T. Case was not maintainable. The appellant's Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was dismissed by this Division on the following reasoning's:-
"Under Section 4(2) of the said Act the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal can be invoked only by a person in the service of the Republic or in the service of a statutory public authority. In other words, his employer is a necessary party. The officers whom the petitioner made opposite parties in his application may be his appointing authority and appellate authority but the petitioner was not in the service of those officers. Section 2(a) of the said Act defines "statutory public authority" as those which are described in the Schedule to the said Act. In the Schedule Sonali Bank is mentioned as one of the statutory public authorities. The petitioner was in the service of Sonali Bank and his cause of action is against his employer and not against his appointing authority or appellate authority. They are merely functionaries of his employer. He may or may not make his appointing authority or appellate authority a party to the application under section 4(2), but it is obligatory for him to make his employer a party to the application or else any decree in his favour will be in executable, his employer will not being bound by the decree. The Board of Directors or the Chairman thereof who is entrusted with the duty of administering the Bank can only execute a decree if the Bank is bound by it."
(3.) Leave was granted to consider a review of this judgment in the following terms:-
"Dr. Kamal Hossain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Sonali Bank is no doubt the employer of the petitioner and was no doubt a necessary party to the case but in the present case the Chairman of the Board of Directiors of sonali Bank, the Managing Director and other officials of the Bank by whose action the petitioner was specifically aggrieved were made parties and therefore the error apparent on the face of the record is the failure to see that there has been a substantial compliance of the requirement of law. More so, because the respondents contested the case and did not object to the non-joinder of Sonali Bank as a party before the Administrative Tribunal, taking upon themselves the full responsibility of the outcome of the litigation. It is only at the appellate stage that this objection was taken and the technical error in the draftsmanship of the petition by a lawyer could have been conveniently corrected and the appellate Tribunal could have conveniently read the cause title as "Sonali Bank represented by the Chairman, Board of Directors thereof. In view of the fact that in this particular case the objection was taken long 6 years after the case was filed and decided before the Administrative Tribunal this Court has made an error in not noticing the conduct of the respondents themselves. Dr. Kamal Hossain submits that this is a fit case for review not for upsetting the law laid down by this Court but for taking a differential view in the particular facts and circumstances of the present case to meet the ends of justice.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.