SRI GANGANAGAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 43 · Decided: 02-05-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SRI GANGANAGAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. 
A 
~. 
v. 
PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ORS. 
MAY 2, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Law: 
Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 : 
S.28-A-Sri Ganganagar Urban Cooperative Bank~Tennination of ser- c 
vices of workme~Application before Industrial Tribunal for reinstate-
ment-Reinstatement orders by Tribunal-Held, the action of the Bank 
dispensing with the services of the workmen without notice or without paying 
one month's wages in lieu thereof is clearly illegal-Rule 20 of the Urban 
Cooperative Bank Employees Service Rules and s.28-A of the Act run in D 
opposite stream~The direction of reinstatement is co"ect--However, no 
back-wages need be paid-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S.11-D; Urban 
Cooperative Bank Employees Service Rules (Rajasthan)-R.20. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3616 of 
1997. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.95 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in S.A. No. 863 of 1995. 
Sushi! K. Jain for the Appellant. 
F 
P.P. Juneja for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division G 
--> 
Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, made on November 27, 
1995 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 863/95. 
The admitted position is that the workmen, ten in number, were 
appointed in 1992. As a sample case services of Mr. Ashok Kumar, respon- H 
43 
44 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A dent No. 2 in this case who was appointed on August 7, 1990, were 
dispensed with on June 5, 1992. They filed an application under Section 
33(c-2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, the 'ID Act') before the 
Industrial Tribunal for direction of reinstatement with full back wages. No 
such power under Section 33(c-2) is available but the Tribunal has the 
B power under Section 11-A of the ID Act to give such a direction as a 
consequence of the findings. Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and 
Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act') under Chapter 
VI-A deals with dismissal, discharge and termination of the service which 
reads as under : 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
"28-A Notice of dismissal or discharge by employer - (1) No 
employer shall dismiss or discharge from his employment any 
employee who has been in such employment continuously for a 
period of not less than six months except for a reasonable cause 
and after giving such employee -at least one month's prior notice 
or on paying him one month's wages in lieu of such notice : 
Provided that such notice shall not be . necessary where the 
services of such employee are dispensed with for such misconduct, 
as may be defined in the rules made by the State Government in 
this behalf, and supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an 
enquiry held for the purpose in the prescribed manner." 
· The finding given by the Industrial Tribunal is that it is a commercial 
establishment. Rule 20(d) of Urban Cooperative Bank Employees Service 
Rules, (for short, the 'Rules') made under the Rajasthan Cooperative 
Societies Act, 1965 provides thus : 
"Rule 20(d) : Service of an employee whose appointment has been 
made or extended upto a specified period or date only shall 
automatically terminate on the expiry of that period or date and 
no notice for termination of services of such employee will be 
necessary." 
... 
A conjoint reading of the above provisions does indicate that Section 
. "-·
28-A of the Act and Rule 20 of the Rules mutually run in opposite streams. 
Section 28-A envisages that no employer shall dismi~s or discharge an 
employee from _his employment who has been in such employment con-
H tinuously for a period of not less than six months except for a reasonable 
-
G.URBAN CO-OPER. BANK v. PRESCRIBED AU'IHORITY 
45 
cause and that too after giving such employee at least one month's prior A 
notice or on paying him month's wages in lieu of such notice. The proviso 
postulates that the employer also shall have the power to dispense with the 
services of the employee for misconduct and such misconduct shall be 
enquired into in accordance with the Rules made in that behalf and 
supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the B 
purpose in the prescribed manner. 
Thus, two courses are open to the employer to put an end to the 
services of an employee - workman. One is to dispense with the services 
by issuance of on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.