G.C. Mital, J. - (1.) DARSHAN Kumar Jindal, Plaintiff -Respondent, was appointed as a Clerk in the Imperial Bank of India on July 2, 1945. He was confirmed on January 2, 1946. By virtue of State Bank of India Act 1955, he became an employee of State Bank of India. He was dismissed by the State Bank of India after enquiry on June 28, 1963. The departmental appeal filed by him also failed on November 25, 1963.
(2.) THE matter was taken up for reconciliation and when reconciliation failed, the Reconciliation Officer moved the Government of India for reference of the dispute to the Labour Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Government of India refused to refer the industrial dispute with regard to the dismissal of the Plaintiff, - -vide order, dated April 17, 1965. It may be stated that the reconciliation proceedings were started on the authorisation of the Plaintiff which was espoused by the workmen of the State Bank of India as represented by the Staff Association, When the Government of India refused to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, the Staff Association of workmen of the State Bank of India filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1322 of 1965 in this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Government of India to refer the dispute, regarding the dismissal of the Plaintiff, for decision of the Industrial Tribunal. The writ petition ultimately came up before a Division Bench on October 18, 1966 and the writ petition was dismissed, holding that it was not necessary to go into the merits of the findings arrived at as the report was such on which the Government could have come to the conclusion that the enquiry was fair and proper one and that it was not expedient to refer the matter for adjudication. After the Plaintiff failed in the conciliation proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as stated above, he filed the present civil suit, out of which this appeal arises, on April 22. 1968 before the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ambala Cantt against the State Bank of India for declaration to the effect that the orders of dismissal passed against him are wrongful, illegal, ultra wires, void and in -operative and that the Plaintiff is still in the service of the Defendant as a Clerk and is entitled to remain as such till the date of retirement or till his services are lawfully terminated. The suit was opposed by the State Bank of India on various grounds.
(3.) ON the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? (2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (3) Whether the present case has become res judicata in view of the decision of their Lordships in writ case No. 1322 of 1963 namely the workmen of the State Bank of India v. the Government of India? (4) Whether the written statement is duly signed by an authorised Agent? If not to what effect? (5) Whether the enquiry against the Plaintiff has not been conducted according to natural principles of justice and thus the Plaintiff has been prejudiced, and if so, to what effect? (6) Whether ample opportunity, according to Article 311 of the Constitution of India, was given to the Plaintiff? If not, to what effect? (7) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? (8) Whether the Plaintiff has not been dismissed by the competent authority? (9) Relief. The trial Court decreed the suit by judgment and decree, dated March 29, 1971 and granted a decree for declaration that the orders of dismissal are illegal, ultra vires, void, inoperative and wrongful and that the Plaintiff remains in the service of the Defendant on the post he held at the time of the impugned order. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld by the Additional District Judge by judgment and decree, dated March 15, 1972. The State Bank of India has come to this Court in Second Appeal against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.;