S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.) The appellant-book being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 20.4.98 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in C.O. No. 6459(W)/91 & C.O. No. 19069(W)/92 allowing the writ application filed by the petitioners, has preferred this appeal.
(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as follows :- The Board of Directors of the appellant-bank decided on 24.11.98 to open a branch at 4/1 Bhabanath Sen Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'Shyambazar Branch') and a head clerk in-charge of the new branch was appointed. On 6.7.88 the Reserve Bank of India asked the Chairman of the bank of close down the said office as no permission therefor was granted as was required under section 23 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. A similar notice was issued on 11.1.88. On 31.10.88 interviews were held for recruiting the petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 for the purpose of appointment of Clerk-cum-Cashier and they were appointed on 16.12.88. On 2.1.89 petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Watchman with effect from 1.3.89 and petitioner No. 4 was interviewed and given appointment as messenger on 2.8.89. On 5.3.91 an Administrator was appointed by the Central Registrar on supersession of the governing body inter alia for recruiting employees directly or indirectly in alleged violation of all established procedure. On 6.3.91 the Administrator assumed office whereafter he allegedly visited the Shyambazar branch and found it to be closed. he further allegedly visited the said branch and found it again to be closed.
(3.) A write application was filed by the Board of Directors of the Bank which was marked as C.O. No. 4733(W)/91 questioning the appointment of the Administrator on supersession of the board. By reason of an interim order, P.K. Mukherjee, J. directed the administrator to carry on only the day-to-day function and restrained him from taking any policy decision or incurring heavy expenditure without the leave of the court. It is admitted that the other writ petitioners were recruited and were posted at the Registered Office and they had subsequently been deputed to work at the Shyambazar Branch. The administrator asked them to join at the main Branch and on their failure to do so, they were asked to show-cause by an Order dated 11.3.91 as to why appropriate action for absenting from duties shall not be taken. In the writ application which was marked as C.O. No. 19026(W)/92 the said employees claimed inter alia for issuance of a writ for quashing the said order dated 11.3.91. A Special Officer was appointed by the court who upon inspection reported that the cash book was open on 31.8.91. He opined that the writ petitioners did not function and the said branch was also not functioning. Another writ application was filed by another batch of employees which was marked as C.O. No. 1437/1998 questioning the appointment of the administrator. S. Chatterjee, J., passed an interim order therein appointing 3 members of the bar as Special Officers for Constitution of Board of Directors. The said order was modified on 1.9.1993 to the extent that the affairs and the management of the bank will be Controlled by the administrator, but he would not take any policy decision or make any capital expenditure. On 12.2.94 the writ petitioners Nos. 3,4,5,6, & 8 of C.O. No. 6459(W)/91 were allowed to resume their duties. An appeal preferred against the said order was disposed of with certain directions on 16.9.94. R. Paul, J., issued a direction as regard holding of election for Constitution of a new Board and further directed grant of ad hoc pay to the general employees of the bank. The Special Officer was directed to take over books of account upon making an inventory and to hand-over the same to the Administration was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. On 18.10.96 the Registrar Co-operative Society passed an order that the employees who were recruited earlier by the erstwhile management of the bank but discontinue the service due to non-availability of the posts and also non-observance of required formalities for which they had no direct responsibility may be considered for appointment in fresh terms without any benefit of past-service rendered for filling up the 4 vacancies in the bank. It was further directed that their Case may also be considered against the subsequent vacancies by relaxation of the age limit. An application was filed by the Administrator before this court praying for leave that the said order passed on 18.10.96 by the Registrar be given effect to but the same was not heard or disposed of by this court.;