LexTHE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, LTD. versus ITS WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1959 Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vi1iayak Go5avi Hidayatullah ]. 1959 September z4 806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] Respondents 6 and 7 raised before us the question of costs. They stated that the trial Judge had given two sets of costs, which was changed to one set by the High Court. These resp'.mdents should have cross- objected on this point against the judgment of the High Court, and in the absence of any such cross-objec- tion, no relief can be granted to them. For the same reason, no relief can be given to respondent 7, in respect of whom the finding that he had no right of performing the seva and getting emoluments attached to that right, as respondents 1 to 4, has not been vacated, as was done in the case of respondent 6. In view of our observations that these matters were alien to the suit which had been filed, we do not propose to deal with them. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will personally pay the costs of Respondent 1. The other set of respondents will bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, LTD. v. ITS WORKMEN (B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. SuBBA RAo, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Dismissal by employer pending adjudication -Omission to hold proper enquiry or obtain permission of the Tribunal-Su.ch dismissal, if wholly void-Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Scope of-Pen-down strike-Legality-If disentitles a dismissed employee to reinstatem'ent-Ind·ustrial Disputes Act, I947 (I4 of I947), SS. 2(q), IO, 33, 33A. The employees of the appellant Bank commenced pen-down strikes, which were followed by a general strike, pending arbitra- tion of an industrial dispute between them. The Government of India intervened and as the result of an agreement that followed the Bank reinstated all the employees except lSO, against whom it had positive objections, and the Government referred their cases under s. IO of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1047, to the Industrial Tribunal for arljudication. The two issues before the Industrial Tribunal were whether the rso employees had been wrongly dismissed and what wages and allowances would the S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 807 employees be entitled to on reinstatement. The case of the z959 employees was that the Bank wanted to penalise the active trade -· unio.n workers by the said dismissals while the Bank mai:gtained !h• Punjab that the employees were guilty of participation in illegal strikes National Bank, Ltd. intended to paralyse its business and scare away its customers. v. The Industrial Tribunal did not hear evidence and, by its final Its Workmen award, held that. the strikes being illegal, the Bank was, on that ground alone, justified in dismissing the employees. Efen so, it directed the Bank to make certain payments to the employees on compassionate grounds. The Bank as well as the employees appealed. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that even though the strikes· were illegal under s. 23(b) read with s. 24(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947• the Bank had, by entering into the agreement with the Government of India, waived its right to take penal action against the employees for joining the illegal strikes and that, therefore, an enquiry should be held on addi- tional evidence to decide the disputes on merits. Against this interlocutory order the Bank appealed to this Court and it was held by this Court that while the strikes were no doubt illegal under s. 23(b) of the Act, the orders of dismissal 'Passed by the Bank were no less so under s. 33 of the Act, and it dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal, thereafter, heard the cases on merits, directed the reinstatement of 136 of the said employees, but refused to reinstate the re;;t w horn it found guilty of issuing posters and circulars subversive of the credit of the Bank. Both the parties appealed to this Court. Preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the said employees that, (1) in view of ·the decision of this Court dismissing the Bank's appeal against the said interlocutory order the subseqm:nt inquiry by the Tribunal and the orders of dismissal must be held to be void and, (2) no charges having been admittedly framed nor any proper enquiry helcl by the Bank against the employees, the orders of dismissal were wholly invalid. It was urged, inter .aJia, on behalf of the Bank in the appeals that participation 'in a pen-down strike by itself
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.