R.P. Rajah Vs. the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ordera.k. rajan, j.1. the prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in ref.no.ed/st.gen.cor.5/89-90, dated 21.4.1989, passed by the executive, administration in pursuance of the forced resignation and its subsequent relieving order issued by the manager, dated 12.7.1989 and quashing the same.2. the writ petition has been filed against the chairman, tamil nadu mercantile bank ltd., tamil nadu; the governor, reserve bank of india, mumbai; and the secretary, ministry of finance, government of india, new delhi. merely because respondents 2 and 3 have been added as parties, the court does not get jurisdiction to hear the writ petition. the main relief sought for in the writ petition is against the first respondent, which is a scheduled bank. as per the judgment of the supreme court in federal bank ltd. v.. sagar thomas air 2003 scw 4995, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty. therefore, the writ petition by an employee cannot be said to be trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the bank. hence, the writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india is not maintainable. in view of the specific finding rendered by the supreme court in the aforesaid case, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.3. however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the supreme court in whirlpool corporation v.. registrar of trade marks, mumbai : air1999sc22 , contends that though the registrar of trade marks was a private person, writ was said to be maintainable. hence, as per the said judgment, though the tamil nadu mercantile bank is a private bank, yet, the writ petition is maintainable.4. secondly, he relies upon the judgment of the supreme court rendered in bombay telephone canteen employees' association v.. union of india 1997 (2) lln 1038, wherein it was held that when there is an arbitrary act of dismissal, there is a violation of article 14 of the constitution of india. therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the writ petition is maintainable since article 14 as well as article 21 of the constitution are violated. the argument of the petitioner is not acceptable since the first respondent is not an instrumentality of state. even assuming that there is a discrimination, it does not amount to an infringement of article 14. therefore, this argument cannot be accepted, and hence it fails.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that under sec. 2(oo) of the industrial disputes act, any retrenchment is actionable and since the petitioner's resignation has been accepted before the completion of three months period, it is illegal. this argument also cannot be accepted since the petitioner is not a workman under the industrial disputes act, because he comes under the managerial category, and therefore industrial disputes act does not apply to the facts of this case. even assuming, for the sake of argument, if the industrial disputes act is applicable to the petitioner, the remedy available to him is only before the labour court or the industrial tribunal, and not before this court under article 226 of the constitution of india.6. with the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

A.K. Rajan, J.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings in Ref.No.ED/St.Gen.Cor.5/89-90, dated 21.4.1989, passed by the Executive, Administration in pursuance of the forced resignation and its subsequent relieving order issued by the Manager, dated 12.7.1989 and quashing the same.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Tamil Nadu; the Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai; and the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi. Merely because respondents 2 and 3 have been added as parties, the Court does not get jurisdiction to hear the writ petition. The main relief sought for in the writ petition is against the first respondent, which is a scheduled Bank. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in FEDERAL BANK LTD. v.. SAGAR THOMAS AIR 2003 SCW 4995, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty. Therefore, the writ petition by an employee cannot be said to be trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank. Hence, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In view of the specific finding rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION v.. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, MUMBAI : AIR1999SC22 , contends that though the Registrar of Trade Marks was a private person, writ was said to be maintainable. Hence, as per the said judgment, though the Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank is a private bank, yet, the writ petition is maintainable.

4. Secondly, he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in BOMBAY TELEPHONE CANTEEN EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION v.. UNION OF INDIA 1997 (2) LLN 1038, wherein it was held that when there is an arbitrary act of dismissal, there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the writ petition is maintainable since Article 14 as well as Article 21 of the Constitution are violated. The argument of the petitioner is not acceptable since the first respondent is not an instrumentality of State. Even assuming that there is a discrimination, it does not amount to an infringement of Article 14. Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted, and hence it fails.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that under Sec. 2(OO) of the Industrial Disputes Act, any retrenchment is actionable and since the petitioner's resignation has been accepted before the completion of three months period, it is illegal. This argument also cannot be accepted since the petitioner is not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, because he comes under the Managerial category, and therefore Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to the facts of this case. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, if the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the petitioner, the remedy available to him is only before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, and not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.