N.S. GIRI versus CORPORATION OF CITY OF MANGALORE & ORS.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 14-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
N.S. GIRI 
v. 
CORPORATION OF CITY OF MAN GALORE & ORS. 
MAY 14, 1999 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. MOHAPATRA 
AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : Section 10-A. 
Arbitration award-Dispute-Regarding-Age of superannuation-
Referred to arbitration-Statutory service rules prescribed 55 years as age 
A 
B 
c 
of superannuation-However, arbitrator gave award enhancing age of 
superannuation to 58 years-Validity of-Held, Arbitration award inconsistent 
with the statutory provision or law laid down by the Legislature or by the 
Supreme Court is illegal and cannot be enforced-Karnataka Municipalities D 
(Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 1972, R. 48-Madras 
District Municipalities Act, 1920 (renamed as the Tamil Nadu District 
Municipalities Act, 1920)-Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, 
SS. 3 and 503(3)(k). 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 141. 
E 
Precedents-Binding effect of-Held, A decision by the Constitution 
Bench and a ·decision by a Bench of more strength cannot be overlooked to 
treat a latter decision by a Bench of lesser strength as of a binding authority; 
more so, when attention of the Judges deciding the latter case was not F 
invited· to earlier decisions available. 
The appellant was an Assistant health Officer with the respondent-
Corporation. An industrial dispute regarding the age of superannuation of 
the workmen of the respondent-Corporation was referred to arbitration under 
Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The age of superannuation G 
was prescribed as 55 years under Rule 48 of the Karnataka Municipalities 
(Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 1972. The appellant 
was governed by this Rule. However, the arbitrator gave an award enhancing 
the age of superannuation to 58 years. 
The respondent-Corporation ordered the appellant to retire in view of H 
771 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A his having attained the age of 55 years. The appellan&iled a writ petition 
challenging the aforesaid order, which was allowed by a Single Judge on the 
ground that the award, was binding between the parties. But the Division 
Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground that the award could not be given 
effect to as it was inconsistent with the statutory provisions governing the 
service conditions of the appellant, including the age of superannuation. 
B Hence its appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Rule 48 of the karnataka Municipalities (Conditions of 
C Service of Officers and Servants) Act, 1972, which governed the employees 
such as the appellant, prescribed 55 years as the age of superannuation. 
Therefore, an award under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be inconsistent 
with the statutory provisions or the law laid down by the Legislature or by 
this Court and if it does so, it is illegal and cannot be enforced. 
,D 
[774-D-E; 775-F] 
New Maneck Chowk spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. v. Textile Labour 
Association, [1961) 3 SCR 1; Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR (1963) 
SC 1332 and State Bank of India v. Workmen, followed. 
Marina Hotel v. Workmen, [1962) 3 SCR 1; Dalmia Cement (Bharat) 
E Ltd v. Workmen, AIR (1960) SC 413; Dalmia Cement (Bhar(;zt) Ltd v. Workmen 
AIR, (1967) SC 209 and Workmen v. Hercules Insurance Co. Ltd., (1961) LLJ 
249, relied on. 
LIC of India v. D.J. Bhadur, AIR (1980) SC 2181, held inapplicable. 
F 
LIC of India v. SunilKumar Mukherjee, [1964) 5 SCR and Sukhdev 
Singh v. Bhagat Ram, [1975) 3 SCR, cited. 
2. A decision by the Constitution Bench arid a decision by a Bench of 
more strength cannot be overlooked to treat a latter decision by a Bench of 
lesser strength as of binding authority; more so, when the attention of the 
G Judges deciding the latter case was not invited to the earlier decisions 
available. [776-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 771of1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.1.90 of the Kamataka High Court 
H in W.A. No. 1872of1989. 
·x 
N.S. GJRJ v. CORPN. OF THE CITY OF MANGALORE [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 
773 
S.R. Bhat for the Appellant. 
R.S. Hegde, K.R. Nagaraja, Kh. Nobin Singh and M.Veerappa for the 
Respondents. 
Th~ Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.C. LAHOTI, J. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this 
appeal are undisputed and are briefly set out hereafter. N.S. Giri, the appellant 
joined the services of erstwhile Mangalore Municipality as a Heal!h Assistant 
in the year 1950. He was prom
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.