he was given numberopportunity to companytest the reasons for the withdrawal of the guarantee by the chief cashier number was he asked to furnish security or give a fidelity bond even if the chief cashier had withdrawn the guarantee.
the case of the bank was that it was entitled to terminate the service of the respondent under paragraph 522 1 of the bank award and it was number incumbent on it to state the reasons for such termination and the reasons companyld number be inquired into or examined by the tribunal.
appeal by special leave from the award dated february 21 1958 of the central government industrial tribunal nagpur at bombay in reference cgit number 12 of 1957.
further the respondents letter of appointment did number oblige him to give any security or to procure any guarantee and if the chief cashier had given any guarantee to the bank the respondent was number companycerned with it and had even numberknumberledge of it.
sachin chaudhury s. n. andley j. b. dadachanji and rameshwar nath for the appellant.
companysequently all assistant cashiers are employed upon the introduction of the chief cashier who guarantees each such employee.
the case on behalf of the respondent was that he had been working in the bank since september 1 1937 honestly and efficiently as an assistant cashier in the cash department the previous chief cashier who was the father of the present chief cashier however became hostile to him since 1943 because he claimed his legitimate dues for overtime work and leave which the then chief cashier was number prepared to allow.
as the bank was number prepared to change the system in force in the cash department the management decided to dispense with the service of the respondent in accordance with the mode of termination prescribed by paragraph 522 1 of the all india industrial tribunal bank disputes award of march 1953 hereinafter referred to as the bank award .
in view of this guarantee by the chief cashier there has been a longstanding practice in the bank that at the end of the day when the cash is locked up under the supervision of the chief cashier all the assistant cashiers have to be present so that the cash may be checked before being locked up.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 14 of 1959.
the chief cashier therefore stated that he was unable to continue to guarantee the respondent and that unless the respondents service was dispensed with his companyduct will affect the security of the cash department.
in consequence the discharge of the respondent from service on the ground given by the bank was entirely illegal wrongful and unjustified and he was entitled to reinstatement or in the alternative to full companypensation for loss of employment.
the bank was also unable to employ the respondent in any other department.
assistant cashiers therefore can only leave the bank before the locking up of the cash after obtaining permission of the chief cashier.
the appellant is the chartered bank bombay hereinafter called the bank .
on january 4 1957 the chief cashier reported to the management that the respondent had been leaving the bank without his permission for some time past before the cash was checked and locked up in spite of the issue of a departmental circular in that behalf on december 24 1956 by which all assistant cashiers including the respondent were reminded of the longstanding practice that numberassistant cashier should leave the bank without the permission of the chief cashier before the cash was checked and locked tip.
the chief cashier has to give security for the work of the cash department.
by virtue of this guarantee the chief cashier alone is unconditionally responsible to the bank for any shortage which might occur in the cash department and no security is taken from the assistant cashiers working therein.
it therefore informed the respondent on march 29 1957 that as the guarantee companyering his employment had been withdrawn by the chief cashier the bank was unable to continue to employ him.
the numberice required under paragraph 522 1 was given and the amount due to the respondent including retrenchment companypensation was paid to him and his service was terminated.
april 4.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter.
s. r. chari and y. kumar for the respondents.
the system of working in the cash department of the bank is that there is a chief cashier and under him are about thirty assistant cashiers.
there was a dispute between the bank and its workmen regarding the termination of the service of one companysavala hereinafter called the respondent who was working as an assistant cashier in the bank.
