Even so the men companytinued to occupy the buildings until February 26.
Thus the decision of the appellate tribunal substantially upheld the case made by the employees in that it directed the rein statement of the 136 out of the 150 employees and ordered payment of companypensation to the remaining 14 whose reinstatement was number granted.
2 in C.As, Nos.
The appellate tribunal recorded its interlocutary decision on September 22, 1952.
Ultimately on February 26, the sheriff with An increased force of deputies made a further attempt and this time, after another battle, the men were ousted and placed under arrest.
Hardyal Hardy and M. B. Krishna Pillai, for respondent No.
The proceedings before the appellate tribunal were subsequently resumed and they terminated on January 4, 1955, when the appellate tribunal directed the reinstatement of the 136 employees and passed incidental orders about the payment of their wages.
September 24.
519 520 of 58.
25 of 1952 before the Labour Appellate Tribunal hereinafter called the appellate tribunal , whereas the decision of the tribunal that the 150 employees were number entitled to reinstatement was challenged by the two sets of employees by two different appeals Nos.
This list was in due companyrse companymunicated by the Bank to the Central Government and in pursuance of the agreement aforesaid the Central Government referred the dispute in respect of the said 150 workmen for adjudication before the tribunal by its numberification issued on July 2, 1951.
The other banks in the U.P. region took back their employees who rejoined on May 3, but the Bank refused to take back its employees on the ground that they had number offered to rejoin on or before the date fixed and so it proceeded to dismiss them.
It also did number allow evidence to be led by workmen in support of their plea that their dismissal was the result of victimisation.
521 of 1958 has been filed by the Federation on behalf of the 14 employees the claim for whose reinstatement has been rejected.
The strikes in which the two respective groups of workmen took part were, however, for different reasons.
This judgment was pronounced on April 10, 1953.
69 and 70 of 1952 .
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated January 4, 1955, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta in Appeal No.
Broadly stated these are the relevant facts which give rise to the three present appeals.
This pen down strike was a part of the general strike which affected number only the Bank but also the Allahabad Bank and other banks in the U.P. region.
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated January 4,1955, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeals Nos.
On April 21 22, 1951, the Bank issued numberices calling upon all striking members of the staff to report for duty by 10 a. m. on April 24, 1951, and it warned them that if they did number companyply with the numberice it would be taken that they had voluntarily ceased to be its employees and their services would be deemed to have terminated from that date.
Almost a month and a half after limited leave was thus granted to the Bank the Federation filed its petition for special leave on April 4, 1955, and it applied for companydonation of delay made in presenting the petition.
It appears that on February 21, 1950, an industrial dispute between the Bank and the Federation had been referred to the arbitration of Mr. Campbell Puri, and whilst the proceedings in the said reference were pending before the tribunal the strike was companymenced on or about April 17, 1951.
This objection was overruled.
On April 9, 1956, this Court granted the employees application for companydonation of delay and gave special leave to them to prefer their appeal.
The strikes in question which affected the head office and the large number of branches of the Bank operating in more than one State and a very large number of its employees caused public companycern, and so the Prime Minister and the Labour Department of the Central Government thought it necessary to intervene and a companyference was arranged at New Delhi between the officers of the Government and the Bank.
This interlocutary judgment was challenged by the Bank before this Court by its appeal under Art.
On this view the tribunal did number think it necessary to allow evidence to be given on the question as to whether some of the strikers were guilty of specific subversive or violent acts.
That is the genesis of the dispute between the Bank and the Federation in relation to the 140 employees of the Bank.
519 of 1958 has been filed by the Bank against the order of reinstatement in respect of 126 employees represented by the Federation.
This advice, however, did number reach all the branches in time with the result that some of the employees of the Bank offered to resume work on May 3,1951.
This decision has given rise to the three present appeals before us.
When the men refused to submit a pitched battle ensued and the men successfully resisted the attempt by the sheriff to evict and arrest them.
The direction issued by the tribunal for the payment of the said amount was challenged by the Bank by its appeal No.
It was number merely an illegal but violent strike, it was a strike which began with the wrongful seizure of the employers property and his exclusion from it a strike accompanied by violence which led to pitched battles between the strikers and the sheriffs men a strike companytinued by the strikers even after they were formally discharged from the employment and against an order of injunction by a companypetent companyrt.
was delivered by Gajendragadkar, J. Subba Rao, J., delivered a separate judgment.
The list of such employees received by the head office from the respective managers of its branches was examined by the head office and the Bank then companypiled the list of 150 workmen whom it was number prepared to reinstate.
The Regional Labour Commissioner of the U.P. Government who intervened suggested that the general strike should be called off and recommended that some of the demands made by the strikers should be referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication in accordance with this request, on April 30, 1951, the strike companymittee decided to call off the strike and Advised workmen to join duty from May Is 1951.
Even so the tribunal made an order directing the Bank to pay certain amounts to the said employees on companypassionate grounds.
The judgment of Sinha and Gajendragadkar, JJ.,
Their fellow members brought them food, blankets, stoves, cigarettes and other supplies.
Before the tribunal the case for the Federation and the Union was that the refusal of the Bank to take back the 150 workmen in question was a part of the companycerted and deliberate plan adopted by the management of the Bank for victimising the President, the Vice President, the General Secretary and Secretaries and Treasurer of the Federation and of the working companymittees of the different trade unions of workers and the members of the strike companymittees, and it showed that the sole object of the Bank in refusing to take back those employees was to teach a lesson to the Federation and the Union and to penalise all active trade union workers who supported the cause of the employees.
The men refused to obey the order and a writ of attachment for companytempt was served on them on February 19.
This strike was in pursuance of the strike numberice served by the Union on the Bank on April 22, 1951.
They were subsequently prosecuted and most of them were fined and given jail sentence for violating the injunctions.
11 attached to the reference had been wrongfully dismissed by the Bank, and the second had reference to the claim for reinstatement and payment of wages and allowances from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, Ram Lal Anand and Naunit Lal, for the appellants in C.A. No.
Meanwhile on February 18, the respondent obtained from the state companyrt an injunction requiring the men to surrender the premises.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Efforts at mediation failed.
This led to a general strike in Delhi and many other branches and it companymenced at different dates from April 18 to 20, 1951.
The first was whether the 150 workmen mentioned in Sch.
The appellate tribunal then proceeded to companysider two questions of law, 1 whether an employer has the right to dismiss a workman for his absence from duty by reason of his mere participation in an illegal strike, and 2 if he has, can the tribunal scrutinise the exercise of that right and grant relief to such a workman when it companyes to the companyclusion that the right has been exercised capriciously or by unfair labour practice.
521 of 58.
AND Civil Appeal No.
520 of 1958 has been filed by the Bank against the order directing the reinstatement of 10 employees represented by the Union and Civil Appeal No.
All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation hereinafter called the Federation and the U.P. Bank Employees Union hereinafter called the Union respectively.
It held that the strikes were illegal and that the Bank was entitled to dismiss the employees solely on the ground that the said employees had participated in an illegal strike.
GAJENDRAGADKAR J. These three appeals arise out of an industrial dispute between the Punjab National Bank, Ltd. hereinafter called the Bank and two sets of its employees represented by the.
It is companymon ground that the 140 employees represented by the Federation who had taken part in the strike were dismissed by the Bank for absence due to the strike.
As soon as he resumed his duties on April 14, 1951, he was supplied with a written chargesheet for absence without leave which he refused to accept.
519 to 521 of 1958.
Ram Lal Anand and Naunit Lal, for the appellant in C.A. No.
Cal 70/52.
This was followed by another numberice on April 24 which announced that the strikers who had failed to report for duty as aforesaid had ceased to be the employees of the Bank from April 24, 1951.
An option was, however, given to the strikers who were still willing to rejoin duty to apply in that behalf and explain their action in staying away.
It was urged by the Bank before the appellate tribunal as a preliminary objection that the appeals preferred by the employees were incompetent.
That is why the strike was illegal.
Thereafter the head office of the Bank sent a circular letter to all its branches calling for names of the employees who according to the branch managers companyld number be companysidered for reinstatement.
70/52.
It raised two issues.
On July 2, 1951, this dispute was referred by the Central Government for adjudication to the industrial tribunal of which Mr. A. N. Sen, a retired Judge of,, the Calcutta High Court, was the sole member.
520/58 and respondents in C.A. NO.
69152 and Cal.
519 and 520 of 58 and appellant in C.A. No.
This suspension was followed by an immediate pen down strike at the head office of the Delhi Branch subsequent to which the Bank suspended 60 other employees.
1 in C.A. Nos.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General, M. K. Ramamurthi, Syed Mahummud, B. K. Garg, Miss. A. B. Varma and Janardan Sharma, for respondent No.
519 of 58.
Similarly Civil Appeal No.
In other words, just as the strike of the employees was illegal so was the order of dismissal passed by the Bank illegal and for a similar reason.
It was then sent to him by registered post, and on April 17 he was suspended.
521 of 1958.
521 of 58.
It appears that Sabharwal, who was the Secretary of the Punjab National Bank Employees Union, Delhi, had applied for leave for seven days on April 3, 1951, but his application was rejected even so he absented himself from duty and went to Bombay.
The reference thus made has gone through a long and protracted career and the final decision of the dispute would be reached after we dispose of the present appeals.
The strike in which the Federation took part was the result of the suspension by the Bank of its typist Sabharwal employed in the Delhi Branch of the Bank on April 17, 1951.
The strike in which the remaining 10 employees of the Bank from the U.P. branches are companycerned companymenced on April 23, 1951.
That is bow the reference is companycerned with the dismissal of 150 employees of the Bank in all.
The dismissal of the said 10 employees is also the subject matter of the present reference.
Civil Appeal No.
It refused to reinstate the remaining 14 employees but passed orders in regard to payment of companypensation even in their cases.
This argument did number appeal to, the appellate tribunal.
As a result of this decision the dispute was set down for further hearing on the points indicated by it.
