DALVEER BHANDARI ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by the All India New Bank of India Employees Federation through. its General Secretary c/o Punjab National Bank, L-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001. In this petition it is prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to constitute/appoint an independent/outside specialised agency for holding promotion process in the Punjab National Bank. It is also prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to constitute an independent committee/appointing outside agency for screening, reviewing and initiating disciplinary action likely to be initiated against the employees of the erstwhile New Bank of India. ( 2 ) IT is also prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to constitute an independent agency, or appoint an outside agency for reviewing of disciplinary action taken against the employees/officers of erstwhile New Bank of India by respondents No. 2 and 3 after amalgamation of the two banks on 4. 9. 1993. It is mentioned in the petition that on 4. 9. 1993 the new Bank of India was amalgamated with the Punjab National Bank. After amalgamation it was expected that members of the executive forum respondent No. 2 to act impartially and accord justice to the employees without any discrimination and to give equal opportunity to all the employees to exist survive/flourish and allow them to work in the institution without any fear or threat of victimisation and exploitation. It is also submitted that after the amalgamation of two banks, to the utter dismay of all the employees of the erstwhile NBI, the members of the executive forum, and the Bank Manager are acting with a discriminatory approach, and are infringing the rights of the erstwhile New Bank of India employees. This petition has been filed with the grievances mentioned here in above. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner in the entire petition has mentioned only one instance of -discrimination: In para 13 of the petition it is mentioned, that to distinguish and identify for the purpose of victimisation and discrimination employees of NBI have been given distinct PF number starting from. 1,00,000 and so on whereas the fresh recruits are given distinct PF number in continuation of the existing number, so that employees of erstwhile NBI could be easily identified. Apart from this, in the entire petition there are no averments of discrimination. 1,00,000 and so on whereas the fresh recruits are given distinct PF number in continuation of the existing number, so that employees of erstwhile NBI could be easily identified. Apart from this, in the entire petition there are no averments of discrimination. As far as the aforesaid instance of alleged discrimination is concerned whereby new P. F. numbers have been given in my considered view is not really an instance of discrimination The submission being devoid of any merit is accordingly rejected. ( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit. it is mentioned that the instant writ petition is an abuse of the process of law. The instant petition is frivolous and vexacious and is liable to be rejected by this Court. ( 5 ) IT is submitted that this petition has been filed after the judgment of the Supreme Court deiivered on 13,3. 1996 in the matter of New Bank of India Employees Union and Another Vs Union of India and Others. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, after the judgment of the Supreme Court nothing really survives in the writ petition and this petition is liable to be rejected in view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court. ( 6 ) IT is Submitted in the petition that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact that erstwhile NBI which stood amalgamated with PNB by Notification dated 4th September, 1993 issued by the Central Govt. hereinafter referred to as the Amalgamation Scheme and the Notification dated 8th December, 1993 issued by the Central Govt. hereinafter referred to as Placement Scheme stand upheld by the Supreme Court. Under the Amalgamation and Placement Schemes, the employees of erstwhile NBI are governed by the same Promotion Policies which are applicable to the employees of PNB. ( 7 ) IT is also submitted by the respondent that the petitioner being All India NBI Employees Federation has no locus standi to represent the employees ofpnb and in any event if at all the petitioners could represent any employees of erstwhile NBI, it could only be the workmen category of such employees. ( 7 ) IT is also submitted by the respondent that the petitioner being All India NBI Employees Federation has no locus standi to represent the employees ofpnb and in any event if at all the petitioners could represent any employees of erstwhile NBI, it could only be the workmen category of such employees. In so far as the workers and officers ofpnb are concerned, they have a separate Association called PNB Executive Forum (their members being Officers in SMG Scale IV and above) and All India PNB officers Association (their members being from JMG Scale I to MMG Scale III.), All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation and Punjab National Bank Employees Federation etc. The attempt of the petitioner in the present w rit petition is clearly to over reach this Court by misleading, as if the petitioner represents all the workmen, staff category as well as the officers employees, who were either in erstwhile NBI or in PNB. The w rit petition lacks in bona fide and it is clearly an attempt on the part of the petitioner to misrepresent the facts before this Court while making the prayer generally on behalf of all the employees of PNB. ( 8 ) THE respondent has also taken the objection that even assuming without admitting am of the staff of erstwhile NBI would have been aggrieved, the employees whom the petitioner alleged to have been representing are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further assuming wthout admitting that the petitioner would have been permitted to take up the cause of or represent the workmen concerned of erstwhile NBI. the petitioner would have had no locus standi to espouse their cause or to represent them and the burden of proof had been upon the petitioner to establish locus standi and the petitioner has failed to discharge this obligation, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be rejected only on this ground. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent also submitted that the petitioner, the All India New Bank of India Employees Federation which was set up some time in 1971 has lost identity after amalgamation on 4. 9. 1993. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the scheme of amalgamation of the New Bank of India with the Punjab National Bank has been approved by the Supreme Court of India. 9. 1993. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the scheme of amalgamation of the New Bank of India with the Punjab National Bank has been approved by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, this controversy cannot be raked or reagitated again. ( 10 ) 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties. This petition is liable to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not have a locus standi. The petitioner s federation does not represent all the erstwhile employees of the New Bank of India. The petitioner s federation also does not represent employees and officers of the Punjab National Bank, therefore, legitimately the petitioner federation cannot pray for directions which would vitally affect all of them. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out instances of discrimination in the petition. The sole instance of discrimination mentioned in the petition is in para 13 in which it is mentioned that employees of NBI have been given distinct PF number starting from 1,00,000 and so on. This is hardly an instance of discrimination. ( 12 ) THE petitioner has not been able to substantiate any instance of victimisation or discrimination or step motherly treatment to the erstwhile employees of the NBI. On the basis of the averments in the petition even on merit, the petitioner federation is not entitled to any relief. ( 13 ) THE petitioner cannot be permitted to rake this controversy after five years and in any event in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court now nothing really survives in this petition and the same is liable to be rejected. ( 14 ) IN this view of the matter this writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs.