THE CHARTERED BANK, BOMBAY versus THE CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION.

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 04-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE CHARTERED BANK, BOMBAY 
v. 
441 
THE CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES' UNION. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. W ANCHOO and 
K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Industrial 
Dispute -Chief Cashier of Bank withdrawing 
guarantee in respect of Assistant Cashier-Termination of service of 
Assistant Cashier by Bank without holding enquiry-Validity of-All 
India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award, I95J, paras. 52I, 
522(I). 
The system of working in the cash department of the 
appellant Bank was that there was a Chief Cashier and there 
were about thirty Assistant Cashiers under him. 
The Chief 
Cashier had to give security for the work of the cash department; 
the Assistant Cashiers were employed upon being introduced by 
the Chief Cashier who guaranteed each such employee. There 
was long standing practice in the Bank that at the end of the 
day when the cash was locked up under the supervision of the 
Chief Cashier, all the assistant cashiers had to be present so that 
the cash could be checked before being locked up. In spite of 
reminders C, an Assistant Cashier, had been leaving the Bank 
without the permission of the Chief Cashier for some time before 
the cash was checked and locked up. The Chief Cashier reported 
the matter to the management, withdrew his guarantee in 
respect of C and stated that unless the services of C were 
dispensed with his conduct would affect the security of the cash 
department. The Bank terminated the services of C in accord-
ance with the provisions of para. 522(1) of the All India 
Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award, 1953, without hold-
ing any enquiry against C. 
The Industrial Tribunal to which 
the dispute was referred held that this was in fact and in reality 
a case of termination of services for misconduct and the Bank 
ought to have followed the procedure laid down in para. 521 of 
the Bank Award for taking disciplinary action, that the 
termination of service was. illegal and improper and that C 
was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other 
benefits: 
Held, that the services of the Assistant Cashier were properly 
terminated by the Bank. There was no doubt that an employer 
could not dispense with the services of a permanent employee 
by mere notice and claim that the industrial tribunal had no 
jurisdiction to inquire into the circumstances of SJ!ch termina-
tion. Even in a case of this kind the requirement of bonafides 
was essential and if the termination of service was a colourable 
exercise of the power or as a result of victimisation or unfair 
h.bour practice the tribunal had jurisdiction to interfere. Where 
the termination of service ·was capricious, arbitrary or unneces-
sarily harsh that may be cogent evidence of victimisation or 
unfair labour practice. In the present case the security of the 
April 4. 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
r960 
Bank was involved and if the Bank decided that it would not go 
into the squabble between the Chief Cashier and C and would use 
Chartered Bank, para. 522(1) of the Bank Award to terminate the, services of Cit 
Boinbay 
could not be said the Bank was exercising its power under para. 
v. 
522(1) in a colourable manner. It was not necessary that in 
Chartered Bank every case where there was an allegation of misconduct the 
Eniptoyees' Union procedure under para. 52r for taking disciplinary action should 
be followed. 
Buckingham and Carnatic Company Ltd. v. Workers' of the 
O!mpany, 1952 L.A.C. 490, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 14 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated 
February 21, 1958, of the Central Government Indus-
trial Tribunal, Nagpur at Bombay, in Reference CGIT 
No. 12of1957. 
Sachin Ghaudhury, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji 
and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellant. 
A. S. R.Chariand Y. Kumar,fortherespondents. 
1960. April 4. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
wanc/100 J. 
WANCHOo,_J.-This is an appeal by special leave in 
an industrial matter. , The appellant is The Chartered 
Bank, Bombay (hereinafter called the Bank). There 
was a dispute between the Bank and its workmen 
regarding the termination of the service of one Colsa-
vala (hereinafter called the respondent) who was work-
ing as an assistant cashier in the Bank. The system 
of working in the cash. department of the Bank is 
that there is a chief cashier and under him are about 
thirty assistant cashiers. The Chief Cashier has to 
give security for the work of

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