1998 (3) TMI 697 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Amreli District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
2. Termination of employees' services and compliance with the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and Standing Orders.
3. Allegations of extraneous reasons and lack of bona fides in the termination orders.
4. Requirement of opportunity of hearing or action-inspired notice and principles of natural justice.
5. Freezing of the petitioner's Savings Bank Account No. 258.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petitions under Article 226:
The primary issue was whether the Amreli District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. is an "authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution, thus making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court examined various precedents and statutory provisions, concluding that the respondent-Bank is not an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12. However, the court noted that Article 226 has a broader scope than Article 32, allowing writs to be issued against any person or body performing public duties, even if not a statutory authority. The court held that the writ petitions were maintainable under Article 226 to enforce public duties and obligations.

2. Termination of Employees' Services:
The court analyzed the termination of 45 employees across five Special Civil Applications. It was found that the respondent-Bank had failed to comply with Standing Order No. 22 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, which mandates one month's notice or payment in lieu of notice for terminating permanent employees or probationers. The court held that the termination orders were issued without following the due process, making them unsustainable in law.

3. Allegations of Extraneous Reasons and Lack of Bona Fides:
The court observed that the termination orders were issued immediately after the new Board of Directors took over, indicating a lack of bona fides. The court noted that the termination was executed in "hot haste" without proper scrutiny, suggesting that the orders were motivated by extraneous reasons. The court concluded that the termination orders were not bona fide and were issued for reasons not authorized by law.

4. Requirement of Opportunity of Hearing and Principles of Natural Justice:
The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice require that employees be given an opportunity of hearing or at least an action-inspired notice before termination. The court held that the respondent-Bank violated these principles by not providing any such opportunity to the petitioners. The termination orders were thus set aside for failing to adhere to natural justice requirements.

5. Freezing of Savings Bank Account No. 258:
In Special Civil Application No. 6135 of 1997, the petitioner challenged the freezing of his Savings Bank Account No. 258. The court found that the respondent-Bank had no justification for freezing the account after accepting the petitioner's resignation and crediting his gratuity amount. The court ordered that the petitioner be allowed to operate his account, provided he furnishes a security bond of Rs. 20,000 as required.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the termination orders against the 45 employees were invalid due to non-compliance with statutory obligations and principles of natural justice. The court also held that the freezing of the petitioner's Savings Bank Account was unjustified. Consequently, the termination orders were quashed, and the petitioners were entitled to all consequential benefits. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6135 of 1997 was allowed to operate his account upon furnishing the required security bond.