PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. versus MANJEET SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 29-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MANJEET SINGH AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, I 947-Section I 8(3)(d)-Reference of industrial 
dispute regarding payment of remuneration to deposit. collectors of Daily 
Deposit Scheme-Award by tribunal-Notices to deposit collectors for 
recovery of amount paid-Challenged, for not giving opportunity of hearing- C 
Held: Jn terms of section 18(3)(b), award binding on all the workmen--
Union representing the workmen were impleaded as parties and since 
industrial dispute has wide implication, individual workman cannot be made 
parties to a reference-Thus, it cannot be said that award not binding since 
the workmen were not parties. 
D 
Administrative Law-Natural justice-Principles of-Compliance-
Held: Its application is limited where factual position or legal implication 
arising thereunder is disputed-If only one conclusion is possible, writ would . 
not be issued only for violation of the principle of natural justice-
Constitution of India, 1950. 
E 
Deposit collectors working in Daily Deposit Scheme of various banks 
raised an industrial dispute s~eking same pay scale and other service 
conditions admissible to regular clerical employees of these banks. Dispute 
was referred to the Industrial Tribunal Appellant bank, few nationalised banks 
and Indian Banks Association were parties to the said reference. Tribunal F 
passed an award directing absorpting of deposit collectors to be absorbed as 
regular staff and awarding other reliefs. Indian Banks Association challenged 
the award. High Court dismissed the writ petition. Special leave petition was 
also dismissed. Notices were issued to the Deposit Collectors for recovery of 
the amounts paid to them. Workmen challenged the notices on the ground· a 
that the appellant could not take unilateral decision without giving them an 
opportunity of hearing, appellant could not take unilateral decision. High 
Court allowed the writ petition holding that the principles ofnatural justice 
were required to be complied with before issuing the said notice. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
825 
H 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. From a perusal of clause (d) of sub-section (3) of section 18 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it is evident that all workmen who are 
employed in the establishment or who subsequently become employed in that 
establishment, would also be bound by an award made by an industrial tribunal. 
B In an industrial dispute referred to by the Central Government which has an 
all-India implication, individual workman cannot be made parties to a 
reference. All the workmen are not expected to be heard. The Unions 
representing the workmen were impleaded as parties. They were heard. They 
°l 
filed appeals before this Court. The Management as also the workmen were 
C parties to the said award. As the award was made in presence of the Unions, 
the submissions of respondents that the award was not binding on them 
because they were not parties cannot be accepted. (831-G-H; 832-A-B) 
1.2. The principles of natural justice were also not required to be 
complied with as the same would have been an empty formality. The Court 
D will not insist on compliance of the principles of natural justice in view of the 
binding nature of the award. Its application would be limited to a situation 
where the factual position or legal implication arising thereunder is disputed 
and not where it is not in dispute or cannot be disputed. If only one conclusion 
is possible, a writ would not be issued only because there was a violation of 
the principle of natural justice. (832-B-D) 
E 
1.3. Appellant Bank had no other option but to implement the award. If 
it did not, its action could be held to be penal. Letter of syndicate Bank does 
not state that the principles of natural justice were required to be complied 
with. As on the date of issuance of the letter they had not received the 
F necessary guidelines, a temporary measure was proposed to be taken therefor. 
Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside. 
[833-F-G) 
MC. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., (1999( 6 SCC 237; Viveka Nand 
Sethi v. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 337 and P.D. 
G Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Ors., JT (2006) 5 SC 235, referred to. 
2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.