Summary
The Court upheld the Scheme’s requirement that a workman nominated to a nationalised bank’s board be unlikely to reach superannuation during the director’s term. Workman and officer nominees came from distinct categories, so different entry qualifications did not establish unconstitutional discrimination. Relief concerning the original panel had become infructuous.
Issues
- Whether different disqualifications for workman and officer nominees violated equality.
- Whether relief concerning the 2009 nomination panel remained available.
Provisions considered
- Section 9(3)(e) and (f), Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980The separate categories of workman and non-workman employee nominees supported distinct nomination conditions. (¶¶ 6, 28, 29, 31)
- Clause 3(2)(iii), particularly (b), Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970The continuous-service and residual-service conditions for workman nominees were upheld; qualifications were to be assessed before nomination rather than equating all directors after appointment. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaWorkman and officer nominees were not equivalent categories for prescribing these entry conditions. The asserted comparison did not establish discriminatory treatment of equals. (¶¶ 26, 27, 29, 31)
- Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The statutory distinction between workmen and officers outside that category informed the rejection of the proposed parity in nomination qualifications. (¶¶ 28, 29)
Held
- The challenge to rejection of the original panel and the request to nominate from it were infructuous because those employees had retired and later nominations had intervened. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- The Act separately provided for workman and officer nominees, governed by different employment frameworks. Their entry qualifications need not be identical, and the residual-service condition for workman nominees did not violate Article 14 on the ground advanced. (¶¶ 28, 29)
- The board draws members from different fields and categories, whose qualifications may vary with their posts and experience. Entry conditions are examined before appointment, rather than by treating all persons as equivalent after becoming directors. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32)
Result
Appeal dismissed; validity of Clause 3(2)(iii) upheld. Relief concerning the original nomination panel held infructuous.