AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.L. Anand, J.—The controversy in the present writ petition has been squarely answered by this High Court in CWP 11386 of 1999 vide judgment dated 6.7.2000. The short point for determination in this case is whether the employees of the bank are to be treated to be the employees of the Central Govt. of not ? This point has been answered in the aforesaid writ petition by this Court, after relying upon the judgment reported in C. V. Roman v. The Management of Bank of India and another 1998(2) SLR 758 as follows :-
".....In the case of C. V. Roman v. The Management of Bank of India and another 1988(2) SLR758 while the Hon''ble Supreme Court was construing the expression "establishment under the control of the Central Govern- ment in relation to The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, expressed the view that such banks may not be owned by the Central Government and its employees may not be the employees of the Central Government, but they would be covered within the expression "under the Central Government". The deep and pervasive control of the Central Government over the banks would safely place such employee as an employee of the Central Government, though not in its strict terms and application."
Faced with this difficulty, counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Bank of India Vs. S. Vijaya Kumar, , wherein it was held that the bank officers are not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution and, therefore, counsel for the petitioner wanted to say that they cannot be held to be employees of the Central Govt.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioner cannot to be accepted. The ratio of the judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts in hand. This judgment has been delivered in a different context altogether. The judgment in C.V. Raman''s case (supra), which was been relied upon by the Counsel for the respondents, has close proximity with the facts in hand.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition has to meet the same fate as of CWP 11386 of 1999. No merit. Dismissed. No costs.
Petition dismissed