IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 11988 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 18, 2009
Baljit Singh and others
.....PETITIONERS
Versus
Union of India and another
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
---
Present: Mr.Mansur Ali, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The petitioners are former employees of Centurion Bank of
Punjab. Now the said bank has been merged in HDFC Bank. After the
merger, the petitioners are now employees of HDFC Bank.
The petitioners have filed the instant petition for issuing
direction to the Reserve Bank of India to take action against HDFC Bank
under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter
referred to as `the Act’) and to ensure that the petitioners may not be
harassed by the management of the HDFC Bank. The HDFC Bank has not
been impleaded as a party in this petition. In the petition, it has been alleged
that the management of HDFC Bank is harassing all those employees who
came from Centurion Bank of Punjab and they are being forced to resign
from the services of the HDFC Bank. It is the case of the petitioners that
with regard to the said harassment, the petitioners have made a complaint to
the Reserve Bank of India, who is having control over all the banks.
Therefore, a direction be issued to the Reserve Bank of India to take action
against HDFC Bank.
C.W.P. No. 11988 of 2009 -2-
After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and going through
the contents of the petition, I do not find any ground to entertain this
petition and issue the aforesaid direction. This petition is based upon mere
apprehension of the petitioners that they will be forced to resign from the
services of the HDFC Bank. Till date, no action has been initiated against
any of the petitioners. In the petition, serious allegations have been levelled
against the HDFC Bank and action is sought against it without impleading
the said bank as a party. Section 35-A of the Act empowers the Reserve
Bank of India to give certain directions to the Banks. Under the said
provision, the Reserve Bank of India cannot entertain the complaint made
by the employees of the bank against its employer, particularly alleging that
the management is harassing and forcing them to resign from the services. If
the petitioners are being illegally harassed by any person, they have the
remedy under the ordinary law of land. If the services of the petitioners are
being illegally terminated, further they have the remedy under the Service
Rules. Till date, no adverse order has been passed against the petitioners.
The apprehension of the petitioners appears to be totally misplaced.
Therefore, I do not find any ground to entertain this petition.
Dismissed.
August 18, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE