SYNDICATE BANK LTD. versus K. R. V. BHAT

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 22-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SYNDICATE BANK LTD. 
v. 
K. R. V. BHAT 
August 22, 1967 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of. 1947) 
s. 
33-Dismissal of 
employee with immediate effect-Dismwed employee files appeal-
Appeal dismissed-Effective date of dismissal-Industrial dispute 
referTed after original dismissal order but befo1'e disposal of appeal-
If necessaTY to compltJ with. proviso to s. 33(2)(b). 
After holding a domestic enquiry the Managing Director of the 
appellant-Bank dismissed the respondent-employee with immediate 
effect. The employee was informed that he might appeal against this 
order to the working committee of the Directors within certain days. 
The respondent filed the appeal which the working committee dis-
missed. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal but prior to its dis-
missal, the Central ~vernment referred to an Industrial Tribunal 
the question as to whether action, by the appellant-Bank, in dis-
continuing pigmy collection and payment thereof to the workmen, 
was justified. The respondent filed a complaint to the Industrial 
Tribunal alleging that the appellant contravened s. 33 of the Indus-
trial Dispute Act as the order of dismissal had been passed durin!I 
the pendency of an Industrial Dispute, the management should have 
asked the Industrial Tribunal for approval of their action, and they 
should have paid him one month's wages. The Industrial Tribunal 
held that the dismissal of the respondent became effective only after 
the working committee disposed of the appeal, and as during this 
period an Industrial Dispute was pending the management was bound 
to comply with the proviso to s. 33(2)(b) of the Act. In appeal to 
this Court. 
Held: There was no contravention of s. 33. 
An order of discharge or dismissal, can be passed only once; and, 
in this case, the order of dismissal was the original or very first 
passed by the Managing Director, on which date the Industrial Dis-
pute had not even been referred, for adjudicatioo. No doubt, either 
by virtue of the Standing Orders, or by virtue of a contract, of 
service, a right of appeal may be given to a workman concerned, to 
challenge an order of dismissal. ·But the appellate authority only 
considers whether . the order of dismissal has to be sustained or 
whether it requires modification. Further, the proviso to s. 33(2) (b) 
when it refers to payment of wages for one month, also indicates 
t_hat it relates to an order of discharge or dismissal, which comes 
into effect immediately, The payment of one month's salary or v.rages, 
is to soften the rigour of unemployment that will face the work-
man, against whom an order of discharge or dismissal, has been 
passed, If the m'!"agement has to wait for the minimum period 
prescnbed for fihng an appeal, also await the termination of the 
appeal when one is filed, considerable time wouJd have elapsed from 
the date of the original order, during which period the '''Orkman 
would not have received any salary. [333F-334B] 
· 
_Equitable Coal Ltd. v. Tlgu Singh [1958] 1 L.L.J. 793 The Punjab 
National Bank Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1960) 1 S.C.R. 806, and S'tra:w-
board Manufacturing Co. v. Gobind [1962) Supp. 3 S.C.R 618 relied 
on. 
327 
328 
SUPREME COURT RBl'ORTS 
[1968) 1 s.0.11. 
The Management of Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Workers' Union 
A 
[1960) 1 S.C.R. 476, and Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India 
Commercial Co. Ltd. [1963] 2 S.C.R. 563 held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JurusmcnoN: Civil Appeal No. 503 of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated November 
10, 1964 of the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh in Misc. Peti-
tion No. 32 of 1964 in Industrial Dispute No. 4 of 1964. 
B 
R. H. Gokhale, B. K. Seshu, Parameshwara Rao, Jyotana R. 
Melkote and R. V. Pillai, for the appellant. 
M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, for 
the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed 
against the award, dated' November 10, 1964, of the Industrial 
Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, attepting a complaint, 
filed by the respondent, under s. 33A, of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). 
u 
The respondent was, at the material time, working in the 
mam branch of the appellant, at Belgaum. By order dated March 
D 
8, 1963, the respondent was transferred to Bhatkal branch, as a 
'C' rank Officer, to work there, a

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