STATE BANK OF BIKANER versus BALAI CHANDER SEN

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 403 · Decided: 14-08-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

... 
- . 
> 
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
403 
an immoral life and that he would no longer be "drawn in-
to her game." Even after that letter, she wrote back deny-
ing his charges and promising to come as soon as her 
health improved. I have no doubt that, at any rate from 
April 2, 1955, the desertion, if any, on the part of the res-
pondent, came to an end and from that date the appellant 
was guilty of desertion. 
For the aforesaid reasons, I agree with the conclusion 
arrived at by the High Court. The appeal deserves to be 
dismissed and I accordingly dismiss it with costs . 
ORDER OF COURT 
In accordance with the majority opinion, the appeal is 
allowed with costs here and in the High Court. 
STATE BANK OF BIKANER 
v. 
BALAI GRANDER SEN 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHoo AND K. C. DAs 
GUPTA, JJ.) 
lndustn"al Dispute-Application for approval moved before dis-
charge-Validity of the application-Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 
1947), s. 33(2)(b.) 
The respondent while working as an assistant cashier of the 
appellant-bank, received Rs. 4,100/- but denied having received 
that amount and stated that he was paid only Rs. 4,000/-. He was 
suspended and charge-sheeted for giving false statements to the 
manager. 
An enquiry was held. The enquiry officer found that 
the charges framed against the respondent had been proved and 
he recommended that he should be discharged from service of the 
bank. The bank agreed to discharge him. Before passing the actual 
1963 
Lach man 
Utamchand 
Kripalani 
v. 
Muna Mata 
Subba Rao f. 
1963 
August 14 
1963 
State Bank 
of Bikaner 
v. 
Balai Chander 
Sen 
Wan<hoo J. 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
order of discharge against the respondent, the bank applied under 
s. 33(2)(b) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act for 
approval of the 
action proposed to be taken against the respondent. The respondent 
was hk>wever, actually discharged after this application was made. 
The Labour court refuS<Od to approve the action of the bank, hold-
ing on the basis of Stratuboard Manufacturing Co's case that such 
approval should have been sought after the actual discharge had 
been made. 
· 
Held: (1) It was immaterial under s. 33(2)(b) of the Indus-
trial Disputes Act whether the application for approval of the dis-
charge of the workman was made before or after the actual order 
of discharge. 
(2) The Strawboard Manufacturing Co.'s case lays down that 
the application for approval can be made after the action has been 
taken and when this happens the employer is required to fulfil 
the three conditions as laid down in the proviso to s. 33(2)(b), 
namely, (i) the dismissal or discharge of employee (ii) payment 
of wages and (iii) 
the making of the application, as parts of the 
same transaction. 
Strawboard Manufacturing Co. 
v. Govind, [1962] Supp. 3 
S.C.R. 618, explained. 
(3)There is nothing in principle against the employer making 
an application under s. 33(2)(b) of the Act for approval of the 
proposed action before the actual action is taken. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuR1so1cTioN : Civil Appeal No. 516 
of 1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated Septem-
ber 20, 1962, of the Central Government Labour Court at 
Dhanbad in Application No. L. C. 113 of 1962. 
B. Sen, f. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder 
Narain, for the appellant. 
fanardan Sharma, for the respondent. 
August 14, 1963. The Judgment of the Court was deli-
vered by 
W ANCHOO J.-This is an appeal by special leave against 
the order of the Central Government Labour Court at 
Dhanbad. 
The respondent was in the service of the ap-
pellant-bank's branch at Calcutta and worked as an assis-
tant cashier. On June 17, 1961, one Shankerlal applied 
for telegraphic transfer of Rs. 4,000/-
from Calcutta to 
Sujangarh and handed over ·currency notes of Rs. 100/-
each to the respondent: As the respondent was counting 
. -
-
•\ 
.. 
-
-
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
405 
the notes, Shankerlal remembered that he had given 41 
notes instead of 40 to the respondent and requested him to 
return the bundle of notes for verification. The respon-
dent however refused to return the notes saying that the 
amount given to him was Rs. 4,000/- and not Rs. 4,100/-. 
Shankerlal went back to his shop and verified that he 
had taken 41 notes instead of 40 and had thus handed over 
one note of Rs. 100/- extra to the respondent, in connection 
with the telegraphic transfer. He then came back to the 
bank and complained to the Manager about
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.