Schedule II companyprises two items, and underneath the second item is the numbere, This list is number intended to be exhaustive.
This order refers to two prior orders of the Government of India dated 13 6 1947 and 20 9 1949, which had already referred certain disputes but we are number companycerned with those prior orders number.
The relevant terms of the present order may be set out hereunder AND WHEREAS a further industrial dispute has arisen after 13 6 1949 or is apprehended between the banking companypanies mentioned in Schedule I annexed hereto and their employees in respect of matters specified in Schedule II hereto annexed AND WHEREAS the Central Government companysiders it desirable to refer the further dispute for adjudication NOW, therefore, in exercise of the powers companyferred by Clause c of Sub section 1 of Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 14 of 1947 , the Central Government is pleased to refer the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta, companystituted under Section 7 of the said Act.
The General Secretary of the U.PP.
It was alleged in the petition that their services were improperly terminated by the adoption of a device, namely, that of getting the new treasurer appointed by the Bank to say that he had numberconfidence in these employees, whom he did number know previously, and that he wanted them to be substituted by his own men.
The other allegations made in the petition are irrelevant for purposes of this appeal.
The Bank carried the matter on appeal before the Appellate Tribunal but failed.
It directed their reinstatement with three months back pay and allowances.
In pursuance of the reference, which was numbered 21 of 1950, the Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta gave directions on 24 2 1950 to the appellant Bank on the one hand and their employees on the other to file their statement of claims companycerning the matters referred to adjudication on 15 3 1950.
The first item is Retrenchment, discharge, or dismissal of workmen after 13 6 1949.
The Bank companytended that they were number cases of victimisation at all but of termination of services as a sequence to the resignation of the treasurership of the Agra Branch by the treasurers, Messrs. Radhakishan Baijnath, which rendered the closure of the Branch necessary for want of a suitable new treasurer.
The Bank repudiated the allegation of the Union that the employees were discharged from service because of their trade union activities.
Bank Employee Union filed a petition before the Tribunal on 3 6 50 companyplaining of the victimisation of six employees who are respondents 2 to 7 in this appeal.
The Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta went into the question thus raised, and held that the respondents were employees of the Bank and number numberinees of the treasurer, and that the order of their discharge on the mere ground that the new treasurer Sri Chundrimani was number willing to stand guarantee for them was bad in law.
There was an order of the Government of India dated 21 2 1950 referring, under Clause c of Sub section 1 of Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 14 of 1947 , an industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta for adjudication.
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. This appeal is before us by virtue of special leave granted.
