PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD. versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, SRI RAM KANWAR, DELHI.

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 220 · Decided: 20-12-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
H. H.Rqja 
Harindd Singh 
... 
S. X arnail Singh 
Ymkatarama 
Ai1<11' ]. 
• 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1957} 
largely to the effect that the appellant's men did election 
work in the morning or in the evening, that is, out of 
office hours. That shows that the work of the staff was in 
addition to their normal duties, and on the principles 
stated above, they could not be 
held to have been 
employed in 
connection 
with 
the election. 
As the 
first respondent does not appear himself to have under-
stood the true position under Rule 118 and has failed 
to adduce evidence requisite for a decision of the ques-
tion, he must fail, the burden being on him to establish 
that that 
Rule had been infringed. 
In the result, this appeal is allowed, the order of the 
Election Tribunal is set aside and the election petition 
of the first respondent will stand 
dismissed. 
As the 
parties have each succeeded on one issue and failed on 
another, they will bear their own costs throughout. 
A p~al allowed. 
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Ltd. 
v. 
SRI RAM KANWAR, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, 
DELHI. 
(BHAGWATI, 
VENKATARAMA 
AIYAR, 
B. P. 
SINHA and 
s. K. DAS JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Travelling and halting allowances to the 
workerl representatives-Order of the 
Tribunal directing employer 
payment of such expenses pending adjudication proceedings-fun's· 
diction-Practice of the Industrial Courts-Costs-Discretion of the 
Tribunal-lndtutrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), s. 11(1) 
(7)-Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), s. 35. 
Sub-section 
(7) of s. 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 
as inserted by Act 48 of 1950, provides : "Subject to the rules 
made under this Act, the costs of, and incidental to, any proceeding 
before a Tribunal shall be in the discretion of that 
Tribunal, and 
the. Tribunal shall have full power to determine by and to whom 
and to what extent and subject to what conditions, if aoy, such 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
221 
costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the pur-
poses aforesaid, and such costs may, on application made to it by 
the perpon entitled, be recovered as arrears of land revenue 
or as 
a public demand by the appropriate 
Government." 
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial 
Tribunal for the adjudication of a dispute between the appellant 
Bank and its workmen, an application was 
made by one of the. 
representatives of the 
workmen 
praying 
inter 
alia 
that the 
appellant 
should 
be ordered . to 
pay travelling 
and 
halting 
allowances' for the representatives of the various 
Unions coming 
from different stations other than 
Delhi to attend the hearing 
before the 
Tribunal at 
Deihi, on the ground that the appellant 
had branches all over 
India and that there were several Unions 
of its employees at those branches who were involved in the 
dispute in question. 
The 
Tribunal while conceding that there 
was no provision of law in support of the claim made by t~e res-
pondents nevertheless made 
the 
order 
relying on the general 
practice of the 
Industrial 
Courts. 
The appellant appealed 
by 
special leave and contended that the order was wholly without 
jurisdiction and was also unjust, while the respondents supported 
the order relying on s. 11 (7) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : 
' Held, that the order of the Tribunal was without jurisdiction 
and could not be supported either on the basis of the general practice 
of the Industrial Courts or with reference to the provisions of s. 11 
( 7) of the 
Act, because (I) there was no uniform 
or 
consistent 
practice in the matter and even if there was any such practice, it 
was neither warranted by law nor by the principles of reason and 
justice ; (2) on a proper construction of the . sub-section there was 
no power in the 
Tribunal to direct the payment of the costs of a 
party in advance by the other party, irrespective of the final result 
of the proceeding. 
The discretion which is given to a 
Tribunal under s. 11 (7) of 
the Act is a judicial discretion and must be exercised according 
to 
the rules of reason and justice, not by chance or caprice or private 
opinion or some fanciful idea of benevolence or sympathy. 
feevan Textile Mills, Hyderabad (Deccan) v. 
Their Workmen, 
(1956) I L.L.J. 423, approved. 
Cmain Banking Companies v. Their Workmen, (1952) 2 L.L.J. 
54, in so far as it decided that the 
Tribunal had power and juris-
diction under s. 11 (7) of the Act to 

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