K.L. Manjunath, J.@mdashThe legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8256/2006 dated 27.7.2011 is called in question in this appeal. The appellant herein was respondent No. 3 before the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8256/2006.
2. The admitted facts are as hereunder:--
The Global Trust Bank on 28.6.2004 selected respondent No. 1 herein, Ramakrishna Kancherla as Manager. The letter of appointment was issued by the Human Resource Department of the Global Trust Bank calling upon the respondent No. 1 to report for duty on 28.7.2004. It was also stipulated in the letter of appointment that the respondent No. 1 should submit the relieving letter and service certificate from the previous employer in original at the time of reporting for duty.
3. The respondent No. 1 was earlier working as Branch Operations Manager in BHW Birla Home Finance Ltd. The Global Trust Bank invited applications for the post of Manager in the year 2003. Based on the invitation, the respondent No. 1 had applied for the said post. He was selected on merits. Respondent No. 1 on 28.7.2004, with the relieving letter and service certificate issued by his former employer and other testimonials, approached the Global Trust Bank to take him on duty. As a matter of fact, the respondent No. 1 had tendered resignation to his earlier post on 14.7.2004. Before, he could report for duty, RBI under Sub-Section 1 of Section 45 of Banking Regulations Act had sent a recommendation for amalgamation of bank with Oriental Bank of Commerce. Accordingly, the Scheme of Amalgamation was sanctioned on 26.7.2004, just 2 days prior to date on which the respondent No. 1 was supposed to report for duty.
4. Respondent No. 1 was not allowed by the Bank to report for duty on the ground that he cannot be taken for duty pursuant to the Moratorium and Amalgamation Scheme dated 26.7.2004 issued by the RBI. Respondent No. 1 submitted several representations. Since, the same was not considered, he filed a petition before the learned Single Judge seeking to quash the order of cancellation of his appointment and to direct respondent No. 3 to appoint him as Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary etc. The writ petition was resisted by the appellant herein on the ground that writ petition was not maintainable, in view of the Moratorium and Amalgamation Scheme. Since Global Trust Bank has been amalgamated with the Oriental Bank of Commerce, relying upon the scheme, the appellant herein had requested the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition.
5. The learned Single Judge, considering Sub-clause (2) of Clause (3) of the Scheme of Amalgamation, allowed the writ petition in part holding that the appellant cannot be directed to take respondent No. 1 into service. However, it is ordered that the respondent No. 1 is entitled for 30% of the salary and other benefits with effect from 28.7.2004 with continuity of service and such other consequential benefits, for purposes of his service and pensionary benefits and further ordered that by way of abundant caution the bank is at liberty to impose such other condition to bind the petitioner to render a minimum period of service compulsorily in order to be entitled to the compensation that is ordered to be paid.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of the learned Single Judge cannot be implemented because the learned Single Judge has not directed the Bank about the period for which 30% salary and other benefits is to be paid and same is ambiguous and cannot be implemented. He has also raised another contention with regard to maintainability of the writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be proper for us to quote the operative portion of the order of the learned single Judge in order to find out whether such order can be implemented or executed:--
Quote- 15. ...He was however, entitled to report for duty before 28.7.2004 which he sought to do, but to direct the respondent-bank to appoint him from that date and to pay all consequential benefits'' would cast a burden on the respondent -Bank, which would be disproportionate to any damage and loss that the petitioner may have suffered on account of having been denied the employment. However, if he is directed to be taken into employment as Manager with the OBC, it should be with effect from 28 7.2004 and since he would certainly be entitled to compensation by way of damages, which need not be computed with any mathematical precision, it would sufficient if he is granted a nominal amount of compensation, which in the opinion of this Court, would be 30% of the salary and other benefits, which he would have been entitled to as a Manager with the OBC, with effect from 28.7.2004 and if he is treated as ''''Manager of the Bank with effect from 28.7.2004 with continuity of service and such other consequential benefits, for purposes of his service and such other consequential benefits, for purposes of his service and pensionary benefits, ends of justice are met. It is further ordered by way of abundant caution that the respondent-bank is at liberty to impose such other condition to bind the petitioner to render a minimum period of service compulsorily in order to be entitled to the compensation that is ordered to be paid. Unquote.
9. From the above order, it is clear to us that it is not possible for us to hold whether the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant Bank to issue an appointment order and take him into duty afresh by settling the arrears and other benefits at 30% of salary. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is difficult for the appellant bank to implement the order on account of uncertainty in the order. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge has to be set aside and matter has to be reconsidered by the learned Single Judge in view of the ambiguity. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded with a request to the learned Single Judge to reconsider the case in accordance with law.
