# STATE BANK OF INDIA v. NANAK CHAND JAIN

- **Citation:** [1964] 5 S.C.R. 621
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-04-03
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 126of1963
- **Bench:** P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, K.C.Das Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-bank-of-india-v-nanak-chand-jain-2999
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Sastry award-Requirement of payment
of one month's wages in lieu of notice of termination-Payment of
three month's wages-Tf sufficient compliance.
The respondent who was an employee of the appellant Bank
was acquitted of the charge of misappropriation of the latter's
money. But on an enquiry by the appellant the respondent was
found guilty of carelessness and it was decided that his services
should be terminated. In accordance with this decision he was
informed of the termination of his services and the appellant tendered
three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Since an
industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and its employees the former made an application to the Tribunal under
s. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of its
action. The Tribunal held that the payment of three months'
pay in lieu of notice in terms o( para 521(2)(c) of the Sastry Award
did not amount to compliance with the requirement of payment
of one month's wages under the proviso to s. 33(2) of the Act.
The Bank filed the present appeal on special leave granted by this
Court.
Held: The payment for a longer period should be held to
include payment for the shorter period and where three months'
pay and allowances had been paid under the provisions of para
521(2)(c) of the Sastry Award no further payment of one month's
wages under the proviso to s. 33(2) is required.

## Text

J
•
•
5 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
STATE BANK OF INDIA
v.
NANAK CHAND JAIN
621
(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C.DAS
GUPTA, JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Sastry award-Requirement of payment
of one month's wages in lieu of notice of termination-Payment of
three month's wages-Tf sufficient compliance.
The respondent who was an employee of the appellant Bank
was acquitted of the charge of misappropriation of the latter's
money. But on an enquiry by the appellant the respondent was
found guilty of carelessness and it was decided that his services
should be terminated. In accordance with this decision he was
informed of the termination of his services and the appellant tendered
three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. Since an
industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and its employees the former made an application to the Tribunal under
s. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of its
action. The Tribunal held that the payment of three months'
pay in lieu of notice in terms o( para 521(2)(c) of the Sastry Award
did not amount to compliance with the requirement of payment
of one month's wages under the proviso to s. 33(2) of the Act.
The Bank filed the present appeal on special leave granted by this
Court.
Held: The payment for a longer period should be held to
include payment for the shorter period and where three months'
pay and allowances had been paid under the provisions of para
521(2)(c) of the Sastry Award no further payment of one month's
wages under the proviso to s. 33(2) is required.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
126of1963 .
Appeal by special leave from the order dated
April 3, 1962, of the Central Government Labour
Court at Delhi in O.P. No. 15of1961.
C.K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, H.N. Sanyal,
Solicitor-General, S. V. Gupte, Additional SolicitorGeneral, K.B. Mehta, H.L. Anand and Vidhya Sagar, for
the appellant.
Anand Prakash and S.N. Bhandari, for the respondent.
December 2, 1963. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
1963
December 2
DAS GUPTA J. The respondent, Nanak Chand Das Gupta J.
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
il964]
1963
Jain, was a money tester in the cash department of the
--
Agra Branch of the Imperial Bank of India. On
State B~nk of December 20, 1952 it was detected that a packet
India
containing IO pieces of 100 rupee notes shroffed by
v.
another employee of the Bank and handed over by
NanaJa~hand him to the respondent were missing. In connection
with this the respondent and four other employees
Das Gupta J. of the Bank were prosecuted, the trial in the Sessions
Court ending with their acquittal-the respondent
having been given the benefit of doubt.
Thereafter
on December IO, 1954 the Bank served on the respondent a charge-sheet alleging carelessness and dereliction
of duty. An enquiry was held and the Enquiry
Officer found the charge against the respondent
established. On a consideration of the report of
the Enquiry Officer the Bank decided to terminate
his services with effect from May 16, 1955 by paying
him three months pay and allowances. The respondent
was given further hearing as regards the nature of the
proposed punishment and thereafter his services were
terminated as from the close of business on May 16,
1955. The validity of the enquiry proceedings was
challenged by the respondent on the ground that
he had not been given adequate facility for being
represented by a Union official of his choice and ultimately after a decision of the Labour Appellate
Tribunal that the employee had an unqualified option
in regard to the selection of persons who would
represent him at the departmental enquiry a fresh
enquiry was held . after withdrawing the order of
termination of his services.
This fresh enquiry
was held on the 21st and 22nd of November, 1956,
On this occasion also the enquiry officer found the
charges against the respondent proved. After consideration of the report and after giving the respondent
an opportunity to show cause why the proposed punishment of termination of his services on payment of
three months' salary in lieu of notice should not be
imposed on him the Bank decided in November 1960
to terminate his services by giving him three months'
salary in lieu of notice in terms of Para 521 (2) (c) of
the Sastry Award.
•
•
5 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
623
As an industrial dispute between the Bank and
1963
its employees was pending before the National
Industrial Tribunal at this time, the Bank made an State ·Bank of
application on November 21, 1960 to that Tribunal
India
under s. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for
v.
approval of its action in terminating the services Nanak Chand .
of the respondent. Before making this application
Jain
the Bank had informed the respondent by its letter
dated November 4, 1960 of its decision to terminate
Das Gupta J.
his services and tendered a payment order for Rs.
450.71 being his pay and allowances for three months.
The National Industrial Tribunal transferred this
application to the Central Government, Labour Court
at Delhi, for disposal. Resisting this application the
respondent contended inter alia that he had not been
paid wages for one month as required under the proviso
to s. 33(2) and so the application should be dismissed.
An application under s. 33A of the
Industrial
Disputes Act was also filed by the respondent before
the Central Government Labour Court at Delhi,
complaining that the Bank had contravened the provisions of s. 33 by not paying him the one month's
pay as required under the proviso. This application
was resisted by the Bank which contended that the
application was not maintainable and the action taken
by it was legal and justified. It was urged by the
Bank that there had not been any contravention of
section 33(2) as alleged by the employee as three
months' pay and allowances had been paid. The
Labour Court held that payment of three months'
salary in terms of Para 521 (2) ( c) of the Sastry
Award did not amount to compliance with the requirement of payment of one month's wages under the
proviso to s. 33 (2).
It held accordingly that
the application under s. 33A was maintainable and
fixed the application for further hearing on other
issues on a later date.
When the application under s. 33 (2) (b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act that had been filed by the
Bank came up for hearing before the Court the
Presiding Officer, Mr. Vyas, held himself bound by
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
1963
the decision of his predecessor Mr. Krishnamurty
--
in the application under s. 33A that there had been
State Bank of contravention of this requirement of payment of
India
one month's pay under the proviso. Accordingly,
v.
he rejected the Bank's application for approval to
Nanak Chand terminate the services of the respondent. It is against
Jain
this order that the present appeal has been filed by the
Bank by special leave.
Das Gupta J.
The only question' for our consideration is :
when payment of three months' salary has been made
in terms· of Para 521 (2) le) of the Sastry Award,
is it correct to say that the requirement of payment
of one month's salary under the proviso to s. 33(2)
has not been complied with? On behalf of the
Bank it is urged that it is unreasonable to think that
three months' salary already paid did not include the
wages for one month required under the proviso.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent contends that the payment
of three months' pay and allowances as provided in
para 521 l2) (c) of the Sastry Award has a different
purpose from that of payment of one month's wages
in the proviso to s. 33 (2). In support of this argument
he has drawn our attention to the words of the provision as regards this payment in para 521 (2) (cJ.
These words are " ........... He sha II be liable onlv
for termination of service with three months' pay and
allowances in Jieu of notice ........... " According
to the learned counsel the use of the words "in lieu
of notice" in this provision marks the difference
in character of the payment provided for in the
proviso to s. 33(2) and it is clearly not in lieu of notice.
It appears to us that the words "in lieu of notice"
in para 52ll2) (c) have not the significance which
the learned counsel attributes to them.
We do not
think that the Sastry Award intended that the services
of such an employee could be terminated by giving
him three months' notice without paying him three
months' pay and allowances. Though the words
"in lieu of notice" have been used it is clear that three
months' pay and allownaces have to be paid in every
'
·-·~
'
,.
5 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
625
~
such case of termination of service. The object in
1963
':\
making this provision appears therefore to be the same
"
as in the proviso, viz., to give the employee some State Bank of
monetary assistance. It is difhcult to see why therefore
I, dia
·
three months' pay and allowances paid under para
v.
521(2) (c) should not be held to include pay for a lesser Nanak Chand
period as provided under the proviso to s. 33(2).
Jain
In our opinion, the payment for a longer period Das Gupta J.
should be held to include payment for the shorter
period and where three months' pay and allowances
had been paid under the provisions of para 521 (2) (c)
no further payment of one month's wages under the
proviso to s. 33 (2) is required.
We have therefore come to the conclusion that
the Labour Court erred in dismissing the Bank's
application under s. 33 \2) on the ground that
the requirement or payment of one month's wages
had not been complied with.
Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the
order of the Labour Court and direct that the application under s. 33 (2) (b) be disposed of on merits.
There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.
v.
A.R.CHACKO
(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. W ANCHOO AND
K.C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
Industrial Disputes-Promotion ofworkman-Pay-ApplicationWhether lies under s. 33C(2)-Jurisdiction of Labour Court,-Sastry
Award-if benefits accrue after Award ceased to be operativeAccountant-If Workman-lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947(14of 1947)
1/S.C.l./64-40
1963
December 2