HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD. versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 579 · Decided: 18-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 579 
HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD. 
A 
V. 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. 
Civil Appeal No. 1718 of 2009 
MARCH 18, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law - Termination - Interim order of Tribunal -
Challenge to - Bank employee terminated from service -
Industrial Tribunal passed interim award directing employer-
Bank to pay Rs. 30, 0001- per month to the employee till C 
disposal of the case - Interim award challenged - On facts, 
held: There is no reason to stay the interim award, particularly 
because of the detailed reasons given in support thereof by 
the Tribunal - In the interim award itself, the Tribunal secured 
the interests of employer-bank by ordering that in case the D 
final award went against the employee still the amount paid to 
her by way of interim award could be adjusted against the retiral 
benefits which she was entitled to receive - Interim order. 
Respondent no.2 was employed with appellant-bank 
and drew a salary of Rs.58,330/- per month. Appellant 
E 
terminated the services of respondent no.2 after 
J. 
purportedly paying her six months' salary as 
compensation in lieu of notice period as also 
compensation equivalent to 15 days' salary for each 
completed year of service amounting to Rs.8,17,071/-. 
F 
Dispute was raised regarding the termination of 
respondent no.2 which was referred to the Industrial 
Tribunal. The Tribunal passed interim award directing the 
appellant-Bank to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month to 
respondent no.2 regularly till disposal of the case. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant challenged the 
interim award contending that respondent no.2, being an 
employee earning Rs.58,330/- per month, could not be 
579 
H 
580 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A called a 'workman' within the definition of the term in 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that as per the contract 
of service respondent no.2 was already paid full 
compensation amounting to almost Rs.9 lakhs which she 
had accepted without demur and, thus, there was no 
B justification in passing an interim award directing payment 
of Rs.30,000/- per month to her. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. There is no reason to stay the interim award, 
c particularly because of the detailed reasons given in 
support thereof by the Tribunal. The apprehension 
expressed by the appellant that in case the verdict went 
against respondent no.2 regarding her status as a 
workman then it would be very difficult for the appellant 
D to recover the amounts paid by way of interim award, is 
not altogether unjustified. However, the fact remains that 
in the interim award itself, the Tribunal has secured the 
interests of the appellant by ordering that in case the final 
award goes against respondent no.2 still the amount paid 
to her by way of interim award could be adjusted against 
E the retiral benefits which she is entitled to receive. [Para 
13) [585-C-D] 
2. Considering the overall situation, the amount of 
Rs.8 lakhs should be payable to respondent no.2 by way 
F of arrears. She would also continue to get the amount of 
Rs.30,000/- per month till the award is finally decided by 
the Tribunal. This amount shall be adjustable against the 
amount receivable by her by way of retiral benefits in case 
the award goes against her. [Para 14) [585-E-F] 
G 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 718 
Of 2009 
From the Judgement and Order dated 11.11.2008 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 684 of 
H 2008. 
HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. LTD. V. 
581 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANR. 
--<' 
Ashok H. Desai, Kailash Vasudev, Siddharth Dias, V.D. 
A 
Khann.a, Menaka Guruswamy, for the Appellants. 
Respondent in Person. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 
B 
~ 
1. Leave granted. 
t-
2. The respondent No. 2 herein Mrs. Manju Saxena was 
the employee of the appellant-Hongkong & Shanghai Banking 
Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the bank' for short). c 
According to the appellant, she drew a salary of Rs.58,330/-
per month with a total annual remuneration of Rs.7,32,736/-. In 
May, 2005, the Bank reviewed its working norms, staff structure 
and other relevant issues governing its operations and it was D 
decided that the various posts and positions held by the staff 
were to be discontinued. One such post to be discontinued was 
held by the second respondent. A severance package and/or 
alternate employment to al
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.