# PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD v. EMPLOYEES OF THE BANK

- **Citation:** [1953] 1 S.C.R. 686
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1952-09-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 181 of 1952
- **Bench:** Patanjali 8Astri 0. J
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/punjab-national-bank-ltd-v-employees-of-the-bank-186
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

MUKHERJEA, S. R. DAS,
GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.]
Industrial Disp11t'8 Act, 1947, s. 33-lnili;strial dispute-Reference to Tribunal-Strike on fresh grounds-Dismissal of strikers
d·uring pendency of proceedings before Tribunal-Legality-Scope of
s. 33.
During the pendency of proceedings before an Industrial
Tribunal relating to certain disputes between a bank and its workmen represented by the ur.ion of its employees, the respondents
along with other workmen numbering over a thousand commenced
a gerieral strike in connection with a fresh dispute.
The strikers
were dismissed and on a reference to another Tribunal, it was
held by that Tribunal that, the strike was illegal and the dismissal was legal.
The Labom Appellate Tribunal held on appeal that
though the strike was illegal the bank had condoned it and the
dismissal was therefore illegal ancj ordered reinstatelllent, Oq
f1nther appeal ; ·
•
•
S.C.R.
SbPREME COURT BEPOtTS
687
Held, that even assuming that the strike was illegal and ·the
1953
bank had not condoned it, as proceedings were pending before
another Tribunal between the bank and its workmen in respect P1"ijab Nationat
o( an industrial dispute, under section 33 of the Industrial DisBan1' Ltd.
putes Act, 1947, the ban)< could not dismiss the workmen save
v,
with the permission in writing of that Tribunal which was not
Employ8's of
obtained and the dismissal was accordingly illegal on this ground.
the Ban1'.
Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applies to
strikes and lock-outs as well, though it does not appear in Chap. V
of the Act which is headed "Strikes and lock-outs" but in
Chap. VII which is headed "Miscelhneous."
'

## Text

686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1953]
1953
previous years, though the Act came iuto operation
Poppatlal Shah as early as the ye11r 1939. It is not disputed also that
v.
the company is pa.ying sale tax on its transactions
The State of with the Calcutta merchants sirice the explanation
Madras.
added by Act XXV of 1947 came into force.
In our
opinion, the appeal should be allowed and the conMiikhe1·j ea J.
b 1
viction and sentence passed by the courts
e ow
should be set aside. The fine and sale tax, if actually
paid, should be refunded to the appellant.
Appeal allowed.
Agent for the a,ppellant: M. S. K. Aiyangar.
Agent for the respondent (the State of Madras),
the L' nion of India, and the States ~f Punjab,
Mysore,
Madhya Pradesh
and TravancoreCochin (Interveners): G. H. Rajadhyaksha.
Agent for the State of Bihar : R. 0. Prasad.
Agent for the State of TJ. P. : 0. P. Lal.
Agent for Intervener No. 8: Rajinder Narain.
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD.
v.
EMPLOYEES OF THE BANK.
[PATANJALI 8ASTRI 0. J.,
MUKHERJEA, S. R. DAS,
GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.]
Industrial Disp11t'8 Act, 1947, s. 33-lnili;strial dispute-Reference to Tribunal-Strike on fresh grounds-Dismissal of strikers
d·uring pendency of proceedings before Tribunal-Legality-Scope of
s. 33.
During the pendency of proceedings before an Industrial
Tribunal relating to certain disputes between a bank and its workmen represented by the ur.ion of its employees, the respondents
along with other workmen numbering over a thousand commenced
a gerieral strike in connection with a fresh dispute.
The strikers
were dismissed and on a reference to another Tribunal, it was
held by that Tribunal that, the strike was illegal and the dismissal was legal.
The Labom Appellate Tribunal held on appeal that
though the strike was illegal the bank had condoned it and the
dismissal was therefore illegal ancj ordered reinstatelllent, Oq
f1nther appeal ; ·
•
•
S.C.R.
SbPREME COURT BEPOtTS
687
Held, that even assuming that the strike was illegal and ·the
1953
bank had not condoned it, as proceedings were pending before
another Tribunal between the bank and its workmen in respect P1"ijab Nationat
o( an industrial dispute, under section 33 of the Industrial DisBan1' Ltd.
putes Act, 1947, the ban)< could not dismiss the workmen save
v,
with the permission in writing of that Tribunal which was not
Employ8's of
obtained and the dismissal was accordingly illegal on this ground.
the Ban1'.
Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applies to
strikes and lock-outs as well, though it does not appear in Chap. V
of the Act which is headed "Strikes and lock-outs" but in
Chap. VII which is headed "Miscelhneous."
'
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRisDICTION:
Civil Appeal
No. 181 of 1952.
Appeal by special leave granted by the Supreme
Court on the 16th October, 1952, from the decision
dated the 22nd December, 1952, of the Labour Appellate •rribunal of India at Calcutta in Appeals Nos.
Cal. 366/51, Cal. 69/52 and Cal. 70/52, arising out of
the award dated the 9th Februa,ry, 1952, of the
Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Delhi.
M. 0. Setalvad (Attorney-General for India) and
N. 0. Chatterjee (R. L. Agarwal, with them) for the
appellant.
A. S. R. Chari and Hardyal Hardy for the respondents.
1953. April 10.
'.l
1he Judgment of the Court-,
was delivered by
PATANJALI 8ASTRI C. J.· -'rhis is an appeal by
special leave from a decision dated September 22,
1952, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at
Calcutta setting aside an award dated February 9,
1952, made by the Industrial 'l'ribunal constituted to
adjudicate on certain disputes between the appellant,
the Punjab National Bank Ltd., Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the Bank) and its workmen, the respondents represented by their Union.
The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly
stated. Several other disputes between the parties had
already been referred on February 21, 1950, to another Industrial Tribunal presided over by Sri K. S.
688
. SUPREME COUR'l' REPORrs
(1953]
w;s
Campbell-Puri, and during the pendency of the pro-
. -;;;
1ceedings before the said Tribunal, the Bank alleged
PunJab .,ationa
h
· h
h
k
Bank Ltd.
that t e respondents along wit
ot er wor men
v.
numbering more than a t'.1ousand illegally commenced
Employees of a general strike on April 18, 1951, in connection with
the Bank.
a fresh dispute. Thereu-:ion, notice was issued to the
strikers that unless they returned to work by April
Patanjali
24, 1951, they would be deemed to have left service
Sastri a. J.
of their ,own accord. '!.'hat notice having been ignored
by the strikers a s~cond noticEl, was issued to them on
April 27, 1951, terminating their service.
The
Government of India thereupon intervened, and as a
result of the discussions held between the Government officials and the Ba.uk, the latter agreed to take
back all the employees except 150 against whom the
Bank had objections on account of their alleged subversive activities and other objectionable and unlawful conduct before and during the strike.
On July 2,
1951, the Government of India constituted a 'l'ribuual to decide the questions regarding the dismissals
etc. of the aforesaid 150 employees, and that 'l'ribunal, after calling for the statements of case on behalf
of the parties and hearing them, made an award on
J<'ebruary 9, 1951, refusing reinstatement on the sole
ground that the respondents had gone on an illegal
strike in contravention of section 23(b) of. the Indus-
'trial Disputes Act, and that the Bank was entitled to
dismiss them. The Tribunal, however, granted to the
respondents compens.ation by way of salary and allow- ·
ances at half the rates from the date of dismissal to
the date of the publication of the award.
'l'he· respondents appealed to the Labour Appellate
Tribunal at Calcutta which, while agreeing with the
Industrial 'l'ribunal that the strike was illegal, held
that it was condoned by the Bank and it was, therefore, not open to it to justify the dismissal of the respondents on the ground that they had participated in
the illegal strike.
The Appellate Tribunal further
held that the dismissal of the respondents was wron.gful because no charges were framed against any of
them in respect of their alleged aets of violence or
<
8.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S
689
·subversive activities and their explanation was not
1958
called for.
The Appellate Tribunal accordingly
. -b" .
.
h
h
h
h
. d
Punja l••t•oi>a<
t oug t t at furt er ev1 ence was nece1<sary on
Banlc Ltd.
certain specific points mentioned in its order and rev.
served its decision as to whether the respondents were Employees of
entitled to reinstatemsn~ till after such evidence was
the Bank.
taken.
Learned counsel for the Bank advanced a two-fold
contention in support of this appeal.
He challenged
the correctness of the conclusion that the Bank had,
in the circumstances of the case, condoned the illegal
strike by the respondents, and maintained that it was
open to the Bank to rely upon the illegal strike as
justifying the dismissal of the respondents. On that
basis learned counsel argued that there could no
longer be any question of reinstating the respondents
in the service of the Bank as such reinstatement
would in law amount to compelling the Bank to employ these respondents afresh iu its service, which
the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to do. He
accordingly submitted that this Court should set aside
the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dated
September 22, 1952, obviating the further enquiry
directed by the said order.
We consider it unnecessary to express any opinion
on the question of condonation or waiver of the illegal
strike; for, assuming that there was no such condonation or waiver and it was open to the Bank to r,!lly
upon the illegal strike as a valid ground for dismissing the respondents, we are of opinion that section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, furnishes
a short answer to the further contention that the
Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order reinstatement of the respondents.
That section provides,
inter alia, that no employer shall, during the pendency of any proceedings before a Tribunal in respect
of any industrial dispute, discharge by way of dismissal or otherwise, any workman concerned in the
dispute save with the permission in writing of the
said 'l'ribunal.
Admittedly, no such permission was
obtained. If the pendency of the proceedings before
Palanjali
Sastri O. J.
690
SUPREME cotr:RT REPORTS
[1953)
1953
Sri Campbell-Puri made the strike of the respondents
Punjab Natwnazillegal under section 23(b) of the Act, the dismissal
Bank Ltd.
of the respondents by the Bank without obtaining his
v.
permission as required by section 33· was also illegal.
Employ"' of We see no force in the argument of the Attorneythe Ba,.k.
General that the section has no application to the
case as strikes and lock-outs are dealt with in a differPatanjali.
Sastri a. J.
ent chapter, Chapter V, and as the respondents were
not concerned in the disputes pending adjudication
before Sri Campbell-Puri. The terms of section 33
are wide enough to cover the present case, and the
fact that it finds place in Chapter VII headed "Miscellaneous" is by no means inconsistent with its
general application to all cases of discharge on whatever ground it may be based. This is shown by the recent amendment of the section by Act XL VIII of 1950
which has omitted the words "except for misconduct
not connected with the dispute" in the newly substituted section. It is equally 'clear that the respondents
are concerned in the disputes pending before Sri
Campbell-Puri, as it is conceded that any award made
by him would bind the respondents. Section 33 being
thus applicable to the case, the contention of the
Bank that the dismissal of the respondents was lawful and that in consequence the Appellate Tribunal
had no jurisdiction to direct their reinstatement falls
to the ground.
We therefore see no reason to interfere with the
ord'er made by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and we
accordingly clismiss the appeal with costs.
Appeal d·ismissed.
Agent for the appellant: Ganpat Rai.
Agent for the respondent: V. P. K. Nambiyar