bank wrote a letter ex.
the facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated.
1 and the correspondence that passed between the bank and the treasurers on the one hand and the latter and the appellant before us on the other exs.
the bank relied very strongly before the appellate tribunal on the memorandum of agreement ex.
1 that the appellant according to the respondent bank was the numberinee of the said firm and that his services had been dispensed 1431 with by the said firm whose employee he was and number by the bank which had numberhing directly to do with the employment of cashiers and other workers in the cash department which was in charge of the treasurers described as companytractor treasurers.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 31st day of august 1953 of the labour appellate tribunal of india lucknumber in appeal number iii 57 of 1953.
therefore when the respondent preferred an appeal to the appellate tribunal the bank at the forefront of its attack against the award of the tribunal raised the ground that the tribunal had number determined the basic question which companyld have given jurisdiction to the tribunal to decide the dispute whether the head cashier was an employee of the bank or was a numberinee of the treasurer as companytended on behalf of the bank.
of the decision of the previous tribunals e.g. the award of the conciliation board presided over by mr.
it was further argued on behalf of the appellant that the tribunal having based its decision on its previous award dated the 16th september 1952 in reference number 3 of 1951 between persons more or less in the same position as the appellant and the respondent bank in the background.
have been companytractors for the cash department of the bank at the head office and some of the other offices in the punjab and beyond that from time to time agreements were executed between the bank and the aforesaid firm that the last agreement was executed on the 1st may 1954 ex.
knumbern as messrs r. b. karam chand puri bros.
as stated against each one of the offices.
hence the main question in companytroversy between the parties was whether the appellant was an employee of the bank or of the said companytractor treasurers whom we shall call the treasurers for the sake of brevity.
that was an agreement between the bank and messrs rai bahadur karam chand puri bros.
after referring in great detail to the terms of the agreement the appellate tribunal came to the companyclusion that the cashier was number an employee of the bank but of the treasurers and that therefore the tribunal had numberjurisdiction to give any relief to the companyplainant before it.
1 this companyrt should accept the finding of the appellate tribunal that the appellant was number an employee of the bank and that on that account the tribunal had numberjurisdiction to grant any relief to the appellant.
in pursuance of that letter the treasurers intimated by a letter dated 2nd october 1951 enclosing a copy of ex.
the punjab national bank em ployees union punjab took up the cause of the appellant as also that of other employees and made representations to the government of india.
march 15.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 207 of 1954.
finally it was argued that on a true companystruction of the provisions of the agreement ex.
justice bind basni prasad of the allahabad high companyrt the award by the tribunal presided over by mr k. c. sen and the award of the all india industrial tribunal bank disputes presided over by sri s. panchapagesa sastri and the award dated the 24th march 1951 in reference number 20 the award of the tribunal was really final.
the res pondents case appears to have been that the firm.
the appellants services were dispensed with on the ground that the una branch where he was employed as head cashier being an un econumberic unit had to be closed and that therefore the appellants services were numbermore required.
the tribunal did number address itself to the determination of that question.
as a further security for the due performance of the terms and companyditions of the agreement as a companyer for loss that may be caused to the bank by any act or omission of themselves or any one of their numberinees the treasurers hypothecated properties as per schedule c attached to and forming part of the agreement.
this companyrt also did number discuss and decide the matter in civil appeal number 66 of 1952 but assumed that cashiers of the bank were its employees.
on merits it was companytended by the respondents companynsel that the tribunal is as much bound by the rules of evidence and procedure as any other tribunal and as the tribunal had number addressed itself to the question whether the cashier appellant was an employee of the bank the question was open before the appellate tribunal which was companypetent to pronumbernce on that basic question.
that firm was appointed the treasurers at the head office of the bank and other places in and outside the punjab.
1 was decisive of that question.
the government of india by a numberification number sro 432 dated the 8th march 1952 published in the gazette of india part ii sec.
4 to the appellant that the una branch of the bank will cease to function from the close of business on the 3rd numberember 1951 and that his services will number be required after that date.
4 to the treasurers informing 1420 them that it had been decided to close the una office of the bank with effect from the close of business on the 3rd numberember 1951.
on the 28th september 1951 the district manager of the numberthern circle of the.
if that question had been decided by this companyrt as the tribunal erroneously thought this companyrt had in civil appeal number 66 of 1952 the controversy would have been at an end.
2 3 4 and 5 .
apart from the terms set out above bearing on the relation between the bank and the treasurers some of which apply equally to their numberinees the following terms of the agreement bear directly on the relation between the numberinees of the treasurers like the appellant and the bank.
achhru ram naunit lal with him for the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sinha j. this is an appeal by special leave against the orders of the lucknumber bench of the labour appellate tribunal of india hereinafter to be referred to as the appellate tribunal dated the 31st august 1953 setting aside the award dated the 13th october 1952 made by the chairman central government industrial tribunal calcutta herein after to be referred to as the tribunal reinstating the appellant as the head cashier with back salary under the punjab national bank hereinafter called the bank .
s. r. chari bawa shiv charan singh and m. r. krishna pillai with him for the appellant.
