LexUNITED BANK OF INDIA versus SIDHARTHA CHAKRABORTY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
UNITED BANK OF INDIA
v.
SIDHARTHA CHAKRABORTY
AUGUST 27, 2007
B
[DRARIJJTPASAYAT ANDD.K.JAIN,JJ.)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-s. 33 (2) (b) and proviso theret~
"-·
Dismissal of employee-During pendency of Industrial Dispute-Dismissal
c order indicating filing of application uls 33 (2) (b} in view of pendency of
the dispute-Dismissal order upheld by Industrial Tribunal-Single Judge
and Division Bench of High Court held the employee entitled to re-instatement
with full back wages-On appeal, held: Order of reinstatement justified-In
the facts of the case quantum of back wages restricted to Rs. two lakhs-
Employer is permitted to take action in terms of s. 33 (2) (b).
D
Respondent-employee was dismissed from service by the employer-
Bank. Dismissal order indicated that in view of the pendency of an industrial
1--
dispute an application u/s 33 (2) {b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was being
filed for approval of the action taken by the appellant-Bank. Respondent raised
E
an industrial dispute, wherein the question referred to the Industrial Tribunal
was the legality and validity of order of dismissal pending the proceeding in
the Labour Court for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b).
The Tribunal upheld the dismissal order. In the Writ Petition thereagainst
Single Judge of High Court held that the employee was entitled to re-
instatement with full back wages. The order of Single Judge was upheld by
F Division Bench of High Court.
...,.
In appeal to this Court appellant-Bank interalia contended that payment
of full back wages was not justified, and that the Bank should be granted liberty
to take action u/s 33 (2) (b ).
G
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 affords protection to a workman to safeguard his interest and it is in
the nature of a shield against victimization and unfair labour practice by the
)-
employer during pendency of an industrial dispute. That being so, the judgment
H
498
UNITEDBANKOFINDIA v. SIDHARTHACHAKRABORTY[PASAYAT,J.] 499
of the Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of High Court does not A
suffer from any infirmity. !Para 7) (502-D, E)
2. In view of the peculiar facts of the case and the background in which
the disciplinary action was taken against the respondent, and the position in
law as stood at the relevant time, the order of dismissal was passed, the
quantum of back wages is restricted to Rupees two lakhs. If any amount has B
already been paid, the same shall be deducted from the amount directed to be
paid. (Para 12) (503-C, DJ
P.G.l. of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar
JT (2001) 1 SC 336; Hindustan Motors Ltd v.' Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya
and Anr., (2002) 6 SCC 41; Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd v. Ajay C
Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579; MP. State Electricity Boardv. Jarina Bee (Smt.),
(2003) 6 SCC 141; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. v. S. C. Sharma,
(2005) 2 sec 363, relied on.
3. Considering the background facts of the case, this is a fit case where D
liberty to take action in terms of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act can be granted.
The appellant, if so advised, may take action in terms of Section 33(2)(b) of
the Act. (Para 13) (503-E)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2001 of2006.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2005 of the High Court E
of Gauhati in Writ Appeal No. 345 of 2004.
Dhruv Mehta, Harshvardhan Jha and Yashraj Singh Deora (for M/s K.L.
Mehta & Co.) for the Appellant.
Gopal Prasad for the Respondent.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment
of a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the Writ Appeal G
filed by the appellant. By the said Writ Appeal the appellant-Bank had
questioned correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge
who held that the order of dismissal was void for omission on the part of the
appellant to file application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 194 7 (in short the 'Act').
H
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007) 9 S.C.R.
A
2. Background facts sans unnecessary details are as follows:
The respondent-Sidhartha Chakraborty was working as a Cash Clerk in
the commercial wing of the appellant-bank at Ulubari branch-at Guwahati. A
disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for commission of irregularExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.