9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank on 17 April 1984 as a Management Trainee. The Petitioner was appointed as Executive Director of the ICICI with effect from 1 April 2001 to 3 March 2006. The Petitioner was reappointed as Executive Director from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2009. In April 2006 the Petitioner was promoted as a Deputy Managing Director. The Petitioner was then promoted as Joint Managing Director in October 2007. The Petitioner was appointed as Joint Managing Director and Chief Financial Officer from 1 April 2009 to 30 April 2009. After that, as a Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer from 1 May 2009 to 31 March 2014. The Petitioner was re-appointed as a Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer for five years from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2019. Approval for these appointments were communicated by Reserve Bank. We refer to the Petitioner as Managing Director. 3. According to the ICICI, complaints were received against the Petitioner. ICICI, in its meeting held on 29 May 2018, constituted an enquiry by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. In June 2018 the Petitioner informed ICICI that Petitioner would go on leave till the enquiry is completed. By letter dated 3 October 2018, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. At the outset, the Respondents have raised a serious objection to the maintainability of the Petition. They contend that this objection be decided first. Accepting this request we have heard the parties on the preliminary issue of maintainability. Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner addressed us for the Petitioner; Mr. Darius Khambata and Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocates for ICICI; and Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate for the Reserve Bank of India. 7. The preliminary objection of ICICI is as follows. ICICI is not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It performs no public duty. There is no public law element in its functioning. It is only a private bank having a purely private character. There are no pleadings in the Petition whatsoever that there is any public duty performed by ICICI nor there are any pleadings of it being an authority under Article 12. The services of the Petitioner are not governed by any statute, but it is a purely contractual relationship with ICICI. The challenge to the order of Reserve Bank is not bonafide, and it is only to create a case for maintainability for an otherwise contractual dispute. The lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat since the amendment challenging the order of Reserve Bank was allowed, therefore petition has to be heard on merits. This contention has no substance. The argument of Respondents on maintainability of the Petition was always kept open. 11. The ambit of writ jurisdiction in respect of the private bodies has come up for consideration of the Courts in several cases. The leading decisions in respect of employees of private bodies are (i) K.K. Saxena v/s. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage;(2015) 4 SCC 670 (ii) Federal Bank Ltd. v/s. Sagar Thomas & Ors.(2003) 10 SCC 733 (iii) Ramakrishna Mission & Anr. v/s. Kago Kunya & Ors.(2019) SCC OnLine SC 501 ; (iv) Binny Limited & Anr. v/s. V. Sadasivan & Ors .(2005) 6 SCC 657. The summary of the law laid down in these decisions is as under. 12. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide. Writs and orders of diverse nature can be issued. The exercise of this power is not bound in technicities. However same width is not to be implied as to whom the writs and directions can be issued under Article 226. Writs can be issued to the State; an authority; a statutory body; an instrumentality or agency of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at ICICI is not an authority under Article 12, but contends that a writ is maintainable because ICICI discharges a public duty or positive obligation of public nature in respect of its employment of the managing directors. The Petitioner contends to compel it to perform such a statutory function a writ can be issued. This argument is based on the Banking Regulation Act and more particularly Section 35B(1)(b) thereof. The petitioner seeks to import an element of public duty and statutory duty in its employer-employee relationship through this provision and consequently prays to issue of a writ to both, ICICI and Reserve Bank. Based on Section 35B(1)(b), the Petitioner contends that this statute governs the relationship between the Petitioner and the ICICI and the order passed under Section 35B(1) (b) affects the Petitioner and therefore open to challenge by the Petitioner. ICICI Bank and Reserve Bank contend that Section 35B(1)(b) has nothing to do with the employer-employee relationship and operates in a different context and merely because the order under this provision is questioned it will not change the character of the present dispute from being a purely private dispute. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a statute. For that purpose the nature of the concerned enactment and its purpose and scope has to be ascertained. 19. The Banking Regulation Act is enacted to supervise and regulate commercial banking. The Act empowers the Reserve Bank to issue directions to the banks, regulate the shareholding and the operations of banks in the interest of banking policy. Part II of the Act deals with banking companies. The Reserve Bank, constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, is a Central Bank exercising supervisory and regulatory powers. The Reserve Bank, exercises power under the Act to grant approvals. It issues directions to the banks under the Act in furtherance of economic and banking policy. It is invested with various powers in the interest of depositors, efficient use of deposits and banking resources. The predominant object of conferment of power on the Reserve Bank is the interest of banking policy. Banking companies such as ICICI have the freedom to conduct their affairs; however, Reserve bank ensures that their activities will not affect the economy in general. The supervision by the Reserve Bank is in the realm of larger policy (2003)10 SCC 733. 20. Section 35B(1)(b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otsav Smarak Trust and Ors. v/s. V.R. Rudani and Ors.(1989) 2 SCC 691, arose from case of a teacher. Andi Mukta Sadguru Trust was running a science college. Teacher working in the college was terminated from service. The college was an institution affiliated to the University under certain obligations. The relationship of the institution with its employees regarding service conditions was governed by rules and regulations of the university. In this contest the Apex Court held that since the employer-employee relationship was governed by statutory provision, there is a public law element regarding the same. In the decision of Raj Soni v/s. Air Officer Incharge Admn. & Ors.(1990) 3 SCC 261, the school where the petitioner, a teacher had worked, though did not receive any aid, the teacher was governed by Delhi Education Code and the employer-employee relationship was thus governed by statutory provisions. In the case of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v/s. Asha Srivastava & Ors.(2019) SCC OnLine SC 408 the employer, a Private School, was receiving a Grant-in-Aid. Because of the grant, approval was required for termination, and in this backdrop the Supreme Court had held that the writ was mai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
