LexPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD versus EMPLOYEES OF THE BANK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 1953 previous years, though the Act came iuto operation Poppatlal Shah as early as the ye11r 1939. It is not disputed also that v. the company is pa.ying sale tax on its transactions The State of with the Calcutta merchants sirice the explanation Madras. added by Act XXV of 1947 came into force. In our opinion, the appeal should be allowed and the con- Miikhe1·j ea J. b 1 viction and sentence passed by the courts e ow should be set aside. The fine and sale tax, if actually paid, should be refunded to the appellant. Appeal allowed. Agent for the a,ppellant: M. S. K. Aiyangar. Agent for the respondent (the State of Madras), the L' nion of India, and the States ~f Punjab, Mysore, Madhya Pradesh and Travancore- Cochin (Interveners): G. H. Rajadhyaksha. Agent for the State of Bihar : R. 0. Prasad. Agent for the State of TJ. P. : 0. P. Lal. Agent for Intervener No. 8: Rajinder Narain. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD. v. EMPLOYEES OF THE BANK. [PATANJALI 8ASTRI 0. J., MUKHERJEA, S. R. DAS, GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] Industrial Disp11t'8 Act, 1947, s. 33-lnili;strial dispute-Re- ference to Tribunal-Strike on fresh grounds-Dismissal of strikers d·uring pendency of proceedings before Tribunal-Legality-Scope of s. 33. During the pendency of proceedings before an Industrial Tribunal relating to certain disputes between a bank and its work- men represented by the ur.ion of its employees, the respondents along with other workmen numbering over a thousand commenced a gerieral strike in connection with a fresh dispute. The strikers were dismissed and on a reference to another Tribunal, it was held by that Tribunal that, the strike was illegal and the dismis- sal was legal. The Labom Appellate Tribunal held on appeal that though the strike was illegal the bank had condoned it and the dismissal was therefore illegal ancj ordered reinstatelllent, Oq f1nther appeal ; · • • S.C.R. SbPREME COURT BEPOtTS 687 Held, that even assuming that the strike was illegal and ·the 1953 bank had not condoned it, as proceedings were pending before another Tribunal between the bank and its workmen in respect P1"ijab Nationat o( an industrial dispute, under section 33 of the Industrial Dis- Ban1' Ltd. putes Act, 1947, the ban)< could not dismiss the workmen save v, with the permission in writing of that Tribunal which was not Employ8's of obtained and the dismissal was accordingly illegal on this ground. the Ban1'. Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applies to strikes and lock-outs as well, though it does not appear in Chap. V of the Act which is headed "Strikes and lock-outs" but in Chap. VII which is headed "Miscelhneous." ' CIVIL APPELLATE JuRisDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 181 of 1952. Appeal by special leave granted by the Supreme Court on the 16th October, 1952, from the decision dated the 22nd December, 1952, of the Labour Appel- late •rribunal of India at Calcutta in Appeals Nos. Cal. 366/51, Cal. 69/52 and Cal. 70/52, arising out of the award dated the 9th Februa,ry, 1952, of the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. M. 0. Setalvad (Attorney-General for India) and N. 0. Chatterjee (R. L. Agarwal, with them) for the appellant. A. S. R. Chari and Hardyal Hardy for the res- pondents. 1953. April 10. '.l 1he Judgment of the Court-, was delivered by PATANJALI 8ASTRI C. J.· -'rhis is an appeal by special leave from a decision dated September 22, 1952, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta setting aside an award dated February 9, 1952, made by the Industrial 'l'ribunal constituted to adjudicate on certain disputes between the appellant, the Punjab National Bank Ltd., Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and its workmen, the respond- ents represented by their Union. The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated. Several other disputes between the parties had already been referred on February 21, 1950, to ano- ther Industrial Tribunal presided over by Sri K. S. 688 . SUPREME COUR'l' REPORrs (1953] w;s Campbell-Puri, and during the pendency of the pro- . -;;; 1ceedings before the said Tribunal, the Bank alleged PunJab .,ationa h · h h k Bank Ltd. that t e respondents along wit ot er wor men v. numbering more than a t'.1ousand illegally commenced Employees of a general strike on April 18, 1951, in connection with the Bank. a fresh dispute. Thereu-:ion, notice was issued to t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.