LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA versus SHR N. SUNDARA MONEY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
R
c
D
E
F
G
H
160
ST A TE BANK OF INDIA
v.
SHR[ N. SlJNDARA MONEY
January 16, 1976
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD. \·. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. C. Gl!PTA, JJ.J
Constitution of India-Art. 133( l)-Sche111e of-Conditions preceden; for
tlic issue of a certificate under in l'Xerci.H' of power under Art.
136 of
ifle
Constitution on such a ccrtific.alt'.
Jndt1.\'lrial l)ispntcs Act, 19-l-7 (Act 14 of 1947)-St•ction 25F read
with
s.\·. 2(oo) anti 25(B)(2)-Scupc of the co11cep1 of retre11clune11t under s. 2(00).
Statutory COil.\fruction of ,\ocial welfare legislation-Guidelines.
Words and
p/rrases-.~leanin.r: of the lvords ''.tennination ...... for any
reason lvhatsoe1·t•r" includes _autornatic exti11guisl1111ent of service by rirtuc of
a pre-en1ptivc pro\·ision to tenninate in the appointnient order itself.
Section 25(F)(b) of the Jndustrial Disputes Act,
1947, provides that no
·workman employed in {lny industry \Vho has been in continuous service for not
less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until
he has been paid at the time of the refrcnchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to 15 days· average pay for every completed year of service or any
part thereof in excess of six months-.
Section 2(00) of the Act de.fines 'retrcnch-
1nent' as meaning the termination by the employer of the service of a v1orkn1an
for any reasons \Vhatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by \Vay of
disciplinary action. In the "Hospital Jvfazdoor Sabha's" the Supreme Court held
that the statutory requirell}ent of the
payment of compensation under
s. 25(F)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a condition precedent for
the retrenchment of a workman and any retrenchment \Vithout payment at the
time of the retrenchment makes the retrenchment order invalid and inoperatiYe.
As the aulomatic extinguishmcnt of his service consequent to the pre-en1;>tive
provision in his appointment order as to the 'Jemporariness and the period of
his cmploy111ent \Va<; covered by the \\'ords "termination ...... for any reasons
whatsoever" occurring ins. 2(00) of the Act, in an application under Art. 2~6
of the Constitution by the respondent claiming that by virtue of his deernecl
continuous service of one year within the meaning of s. 25B(2) of the Indus-
trial Disputes Act. he \Vas entitled to be reinstated for non-compliance of s. 25F
of the Act. The High Court of Madras, allowing .the. \Vfit, made the rule nisi
absolute. The \\Tit appeal filed by the appellant respondent also failed. How-
ever, the High Court granted a certificate under Art. 133(l)(c) of the Consti-
tution.
Disn1issing the appeals and negaliving the contentions of the aprellant, the
Court.
HELD : ( 1) The grant o.f a Constitutional passport to the Suprc1ne Cour·t
by the High Court is not a matter of easy insouciance but anxious advertenc~ to
the dual vital requirements built into Art. 133(1) by specific an1endment.
/.\
substantial question of law of general importance is a sine quo non to certify
Jitness for hearing by the apex court. Nay. more; the question, however, imp6r.·-
tant and substantial, must be of such pervasive import and deep significance
that in the High Court's judgn1ent it imperatively needs to be settled at the
national level by the highe:it bench.
Failure here· stultifies the schen1e of the
Article and floods this court \Vith cases of lesser magnitude with illegitimate entry.
[162 C-1']
Union of lndill v. Hafi.::. Mo/id. Said, JLR
[1973]
TI
Delhi
673,
676,
approved.
(2) While exercising the vital po\vers under Art. 136 the Supreme Court
must have due regard to the constitutional limitations of Art. 133(1) and owe
allegiance to those restraints save in exceptional cases. (163 A]
f
•
•
..
'
STATE BANK v. N: s. MONEY (Krishna Iyer. !.)
16 I
(3) If the workman s\vim~ into the harbour of s. 25f'--of the Industrial Dis-
A
pules Act. 1947, he cannot be retrenched Viithout payment, at the titne of re-
trenchment, compensation computed as prescribed therein read \vith s. 25ll(2).
[164 DJ
State of Bo111bay and other.~ v. Hospital Ma:::.door Sublia <C: others [1960] (2)
S.CR. 866, applied.
( 4) Statutory construction, when courts consider \\'elf are legislation with an
economic justice bias. cannot turn on cold print, glorified as grammatical construe-
B
tion, but on teleological purpose an<l protective intendment. Sections 25F, 25B
aud 2(00), of the Industrial DispExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.