BHAGWAN DASS CHOPRA Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant joined the service of the Narang Bank of India Ltd., New Delhi on July 12, 1974 as a Clerk-cum-Typist and was confirmed in his service on Oct. 1, 1974. The Narang Bank of India Ltd., however, terminated his services on Feb. 10, 1975 without assigning any reason. On an industrial dispute being raised the Central Government by its order dt. July 9, 1975 referred the following dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:

(2.) The claim made by the appellant was disputed by the management. On the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties the Industrial Tribunal framed issues and directed the parties to lead evidence. In the course of the trial the appellant examined himself and he was cross-examined by the representative of the Narang Bank of India Ltd. Thereafter the evidence of the appellant was closed on 21-5-1976. On July 25, 1976 the Narang Bank of India Ltd. entered into an agreement with the United Bank of India, respondent 1 herein, whereunder all the assets and liabilities of the Narang Bank of India Ltd. were taken over by the United Bank of India, respondent 1. The employees of the erstwhile Narang Bank of India Ltd. became the employees of the United Bank of India, respondent 1 by virtue of cl. 20 of the said agreement. The relevant part of cl. 20 read thus:

(3.) On Aug. 1, 1976 the Narang Bank of India Ltd. was totally merged with the United Bank of India. On Aug. 2, 1976 three witnesses gave evidence on behalf of the former Narang Bank of India Ltd., two of whom were employees of the United Bank of India Ltd. by virtue of the agreement of merger referred to above. On Sept. 20, 1976 two more witnesses were examined of whom one witness was a former officer of the Narang Bank of India Ltd. On that date the appellant made an application for permission to implead the United Bank of India also as a party in view of the merger which had taken place. The United Bank of India took time till Nov. 5, 1976 to file its reply to the application made by the appellant. The evidence of the Narang Bank of India Ltd. was, however, closed on Nov. 5, 1976. The United Bank of India sought further time to file a reply to the appellant's application. That reply was filed on Nov. 10, 1976. After hearing arguments on the application the Tribunal directed that the United Bank of India should be impleaded as a party and also gave time to the appellant to file an amended statement of claim. The term of the Presiding Officer having expired on Dec. 1, 1977, a new Presiding Officer was appointed in July, 1977. On Dec. 1, 1977 the United Bank of India filed its written statement. On Jan. 25, 1978 the United Bank of India offered to reinstate the appellant but without backwages and the case was adjourned for some time. But no compromise was reached. On Aug. 23, 1978 the United Bank of India examined its Personnel Officer Shri R. B. Ray and formally closed the evidence. The case was thereafter adjourned to Oct. 3, 1978 for arguments. On that date the United Bank of India submitted an application praying that the Bank should be allowed to cross-examine the appellant whose evidence had been closed on May 21, 1976. By its order dt. Oct. 17, 1978 the Tribunal dismissed the application of the United Bank of India on the ground that since no new plea had been taken there was no ground to recall the appellant and subject him for further cross-examination. The arguments were heard by the Tribunal on Nov. 2,1978 and an award was given on Jan. 30, 1981 holding that the termination of the services of the appellant was not justified and was bad, illegal, and unenforceable. The Tribunal also held that the appellant should be deemed to be in continuous service of the Narang Bank of India Ltd., New Delhi on and after the 10th Feb. 1975 and consequently of the United Bank of India on the date of the award. The Tribunal directed that the appellant should be paid his full backwages up to the date of his reinstatement. It also awarded costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant. Aggrieved by the said award the United Bank of India filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petn. No. 928 of 1981. That petition was heard and disposed of by the learned single Judge of the High Court on Feb. 24, 1987. The learned single Judge set aside the award made by the Tribunal on the ground that when once a person was impleaded as a party to the proceedings, principles of natural justice required that he should be given an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses whose evidence had been recorded earlier and since the Tribunal had declined to grant permission to the United Bank of India to cross-examine the appellant whose evidence had been closed on May 21, 1976 the award was liable to be quashed. The learned single Judge, however, remanded the case to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the case again after giving an opportunity to the United Bank of India to cross-examine the appellant and other witnesses. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge the appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 67 of 1987 before the Division Bench of the High Court. That appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that the United Bank of India had the right to cross-examine the appellant on the sole ground that it had been impleaded as a party after the merger of the Narang Bank of India Ltd. with the United Bank of India. Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.