LexMANAGEMENT OF THE HINDUSTAN COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., KANPUR versus BHAGWAN DASS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MANAGEMENT OF 1HE HINDUSmAN COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., KANPUR, l'. BHAGWAN DASS B November 26, 1964 [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, ]. C. SHAH, S. M. Snau, AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JI.] Supreme Court Rules, Order 13 r. 2-p•titibn for 1pecial leave 10 oppeal-whether can be entertained without appel/11111 fir~! applying for certificate to High Court-and without applying for exemption under Order C 45 r. I-whether Order 13 r. 2 mandatory. In a petition under Article 227 fi:ed by the respondent, the High Court quashed an order of the Labour Court. The appellant then filed before the High Court a petition praying for the issue of a certificate under Art. 132( I) and Art. 133 of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The petition was returned to the appellant with the intimation that it should be presented at Chandigarh and not at Delhi. The appellant D thereafter did not proceed with that petition but applied for and was granted ex-part• special leave to appeal under Article 136. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the •pecial leave granted to the appellant was liable to be revoked and it was obtained with- out complying with the provision of Order 13 r. 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, whereby when 'l'l appeal lies to the Supreme Court on a certificate issued by a High Court or other tribunal, no application to the Supreme Court for special leave can be entertained un1... the High Court or the E tribunal concerned has first been moved and it has refused to grant the certificate; and furthermore special leave had been obtained without applying for exemption from moving the High Court for a certificate. HELD : In view of the provisions of Order 13 r. 2 which is a mandatory rule, no application for special leave to appeal in this case could be entertained unless the High Court had first been moved and refused to grant the certificate. Under Order 45 r. 1 of the Supreme Court F Rules, this Court could, for sufficient reasons shown, excuse the appli- cant from compliance with the requirements of Order 13 r. 2; but no such application for exemption had been made. The special leave to appeal obtained in contravention of Order 13 r, 2 was therefore liable to be revoked. [267 G, H; 268 A] Union of India v. Kishore Lal Gupta [1960] 1, S.C.R. 493, SOO, dis- tinguished. G C1v1L APPELLATE JURJSD1cnoN: Civil Appeal No. SS of 1964 and C.M.P. No. 2174 of 1964. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 23, 1962, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Miscella- neous No. 1322 of 1961. H T. R. Bhasin, for the appellant. M. K. Ramamurthi, D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg and S. C. Agar- wala, for the respondent. 288 SUPllBMB COURT llBPOllTS [1965) 2 S.C.ll. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A Bachawat, J. The short point arising for our decision in this case is whether the special leave to appeal granted to the appellant on August 21. 1962 should be revoked on account of non-compli· ance with the provisions of 0.13, r. 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950. - B The respondent was a cashier in the employ of the Amritsar Branch of the appellant Bank. He was suspended on May 5, .1952 and finally dismissed from the service of the appellant on January 24, 1959. In the meantime, he was prosecuted for offences under ss. 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted by the Trial Maiistrate on March 21, 1955, and a revision petition C against the order of acquittal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on June 23, 1955. On January 9, 1961, he filed a petition under s. 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Presiding officer of the Central Government Labour Court, Delhi, claiming from the appellant payment of a sum of D Rs. 16,000 in terms of paragraph 521(2)(c) of the Bank Award, including full salary and allowance from the date of suspension to the date of termination of his service. By an order dated March 28, 1961, the Labour Court allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 375 only, and dismissed the rest of the claim. On May 29, 1961, the respondent filed a petition in the Punjab High Court I! under Art. 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Labour Court. By an order dated February 23, 1962 a learned single Judge of the Punjab High Court quashed the order of the Labour Court, and directed it to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. the High Court hel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.