1987 (11) TMI 382 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of termination of the appellant's services.
2. Rights of the United Bank of India to cross-examine the appellant after merger.
3. Applicability of principles of natural justice in the context of the merger.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Justification of Termination:
The appellant's services were terminated by the Narang Bank of India Ltd. on February 10, 1975, without assigning any reason. The Central Government referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal held that the termination was not justified, illegal, and unenforceable, directing reinstatement with full back wages and costs of Rs. 1,000.

2. Rights of the United Bank of India to Cross-Examine:
Upon the merger of Narang Bank of India Ltd. with United Bank of India on August 1, 1976, the United Bank of India was impleaded as a party. The Tribunal dismissed the United Bank of India's application to cross-examine the appellant, whose evidence had been closed on May 21, 1976, on the grounds that no new plea had been taken. The High Court's Single Judge set aside the Tribunal's award, stating that principles of natural justice required the United Bank of India to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the appellant. The Division Bench upheld this decision.

3. Applicability of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Supreme Court held that the United Bank of India, as the successor-in-interest, stepped into the shoes of the Narang Bank of India Ltd. and was bound by all proceedings that had taken place till its impleading. The Court emphasized that there was no exceptional circumstance justifying the recall of witnesses for cross-examination by the United Bank of India. The principles of natural justice were not violated by the Tribunal in passing the award. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Division Bench and the Single Judge, remanding the case to the Single Judge to consider any other relevant grounds urged by the United Bank of India.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the United Bank of India was directed to pay the costs of the appellant. The case was remanded to the learned Single Judge for further consideration of any other grounds.