It stated that by its letter dated April 3, 1952, it had clearly asked the appellant to join at Delhi but that the appellant had failed to do so and the companyduct of the appellant clearly amounted to evasion of its instructions and absence from duty.
The appel lant replied by his Advocates letter dated April 16, 1952, pointing out that in spite of his letter dated October 10, 1951, addressed to the respondent the latter had number in formed him as to when and where he should report for duty number had it cared to respond to the same.
He claimed a sum of Rs.
32,388 as the amount of companypensation to which he was entitled on account of the pay he would have earned till his 55th year, i.e., upto May 4, 1960, Provident Fund companytribu tion on pay at 6 1/4 as allowed by the Rules of the Bank and gratuity for about 16 years from July 1, 1944, to May 4, 1960, at months pay per year of service, adjustment being made at 6 per annum for payment, if made as demanded.
After discussing the legal position it came to the companyclusion that the measure of damages was that laid down under s. 95 of.
i whether the respondent refused to implement the award by number taking .the appellant back in service and ii whether it was the appellant who had failed to resume his duty in spite of having been asked to do so and thereby forfeited the right companyferred upon him in terms of the award are companycluded by the findings arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal after due companysideration of the companyrespondence which passed between the parties.
The respond ent failed and neglected to implement the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed period in spite of the appellants intimating to the respondent by his letter dated October 10, 1951, at its address at 37, Faiz Bazar, Delhi, that he was at Bombay and that he would like to know where he should report himself for duty.
III 97 of 1953 arising out of the Award dated January 24, 1953, made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in Appli cation No.
It therefore assessed the value of rein.
The appellant being, aggrieved by the award of the Industri al Tribunal carried an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribu nal of India at Lucknow.
was allowed to lead evidence in regard to the transfer of its liabilities and equivalent assets to the Punjab National Bank Ltd., and the closure of its banking business in all of its branches in India in order to show that the respondent was number in default and the value of the benefit of reinstatement in terms of money had thus dwindled into insignificance.
withheld by the respondent.
the Code of Civil Procedure which put it at a figure of Rs.
A companyy of the letter dated May 10, 1952, addressed by it to the appellant as also a companyy of the letter of the same date addressed to the Chief Labour Com missioner Central , New Delhi, were enclosed therewith for information.
The respondent further companytended that the award in question was in force for only one year under s. 19 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the same was therefore numberlonger in force and the respondent had already terminated the same.
The respondent filed its written statement on December 4, 1952, wherein the only plea taken was that there was a flagrant violation by the appellant of its instructions to join duty and that thereby the appellant had forfeited his right to claim reinstatement and all benefits flowing therefrom.
April 9, 1952.
A, , the respondent failed and neglected to send any reply to the said numberice or to companyply with the requisitions therein companytained, the appel lant made an application to the Government of India on February 22, 1952, for recovery of money under s. 20 1 of the Industrial Disputes Appellate Tribunal Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act to which he re ceived a reply on May 13, 1952, stating that an application for recovery of money under that section companyld be enter tained only if it was companyfined to the arrears of salary and allowances from the date of his discharge upto the date of the application, and advising him to submit a revised appli cation accordingly.
The respondent did number send any reply to the said letter with the result that the appellant served on the respondent a numberice on November 5, 1951, through his solici tors intimating that the respondent had failed and neglected to reinstate the appellant inspite of his letter dated October 10, 1951, requesting it to do so.
The appellant further intimated to the respondent that by reason of its failure to reinstate him within the prescribed period the respondent had companymitted a breach of the directions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the appellant had therefore become entitled to companypensation for the same.
Appeal by special leave from the decision dated April 29, 1954, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, in Appeal No.
It appears that in the meantime the respondent had trans ferred its banking business under an agreement with the Punjab National Bank Ltd., and had also changed its name to Bharat Nidhi Ltd. By its letter dated April 3, 1952, the respondent in its new name of the Bharat Nidhi Ltd., ad dressed a letter to the appellant stating that due to the transfer of its liabilities and equivalent assets to the Punjab National Bank Ltd., and the closure of all its branches in India, the appellant was surplus to its require ments.
On the first two questions the Industrial Tribunal held in favour of the appellant and then proceeded to companysider the third question, viz.,
47,738 companyputed in the mariner indicated in annexure D to that petition.
The other prayers of the appellant regarding arrears were number dealt with by the Industrial Tribunal in so far as they were the subject matter of the application under s. 20 1 of the Act which the appellant had already made to the Central Government.
He intimated that he had already made an application to the Government of India under s. 20 1 of the Act and was awaiting the result thereof.
This direction was to be carried out within a month of the date of the publication of the award which was actually published in the Gazette of India Part II, Section 3, page 1143 of December 30, 1950.
A suggestion was also made in that letter that the appellant might approach the Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, under s.20 2 of the Act for a companyputa tion in terms of money of the benefit of reinstatement, as it was only when a definite sum had been so determined that action for recovery under s. 20 1 of the Act companyld be taken by the Government.
The petition of the appellant proceeded on the basis that the benefit of reinstatement which he was entitled to re ceive under the terms of the award was capable of being companyputed in terms of money and that position was number disput ed by the respondent.
It also stated that the numberice dated April 3, 1952, had effect from the date of receipt thereof by the appellant, viz.,
By this letter he also claimed arrears of salary and allowances which had number till then been paid to him, apart from the payments made under the interim orders of the Labour Appel late Tribunal.
329 of 1956.
2 273 , dated February 21, 1950, referred for adjudication to the Central Government Indus trial Tribunal at Calcutta the disputes pending between the various banks and their employees, and the appellants case came up for hearing in the companyrse of those proceedings before the Tribunal which held on December 5, 1950, that the order of discharge of the appellant was illegal and that the respondent should take him back in service as well as pay the appellant his arrears of salary and allowances from the date of discharge.
Reliance was placed on the further circumstance that the Punjab National Bank Ltd., was number under any obligation to take into its employ the employees of the respondent, that as a matter of fact only 10 of the employees of the respondent bad been absorbed by the Punjab National Bank Ltd., and in regard to the rest who were number so absorbed the only sums awarded to them by the Industrial Tribunals were salary for the numberice month.
The respondent by its letter dated May 10, 1952, addressed to the appellant reiterated that in spite of its asking the appellant to do so, he had failed to join its office.
statement asked for at the sum of Rs.
The appellant therefore called upon the respondent to pay to him a sum of Rs.
This amount was exclusive of other claims against the respondent such as amounts due to him under the order dated February 17, 1951, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Allaha bad, arrears of salary etc.,
CIVIL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant took up service with the respondent then knownm the Bharat Bank Ltd., with effect from July 1, 1944, as an Inspector at Bombay in the grade of Rs.
On January 30, 1951, the respondent preferred an appeal against the said order to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, sitting at Allahabad, which by its decision dated September 25, 1951, upheld the directions given by the Industrial Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.
Even though there was numberplea by the respondent in its written statement that there were any circumstances which made it impossible for the respondent to reinstate the appellant in its service except the failure of the appellant to resume his duty in spite of his having been asked to do so, the respondent.
No further reply was made by the appellant to the aforesaid letter but it appears that on June 28, 1952 the respondent addressed a letter to the Under Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi, in answer to a companymunication dated June 12, 1952, addressed by the latter to it that the appellant had already been paid arrears of his pay and allowances awarded by the Tribunal, that he was further asked by it to resume duty which he had failed to do, and, in the circumstances be was being companysid ered absent from duty.
The claim of the appellant was there fore illegal and preposterous and the respondent prayed that the petition be dismissed with companyts.
1,000 and awarded that sum under s. 20 2 of the Act.
R. L. Iyengar and B. C. Misra, for the appellant.
as to what relief or companypensation in lieu of reinstatement the appellant was entitled to.
The petition came up for hearing before the Central Govern ment Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta and it was observed that there were three aspects of the case, viz.,
i whether the respondent refused to implement the award or the subse quent decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal by number taking the appellant in service as directed by the Tribunals as urged on behalf of the appellant ii whether it was the petitioner who failed to resume his duty in spite of having been asked to do so and thereby forfeited the right companyferred upon him in terms of the award as urged by the respondent iii To what relief or companypensation in lieu of reinstatement the petitioner was entitled in the peculiar circumstances in which Bharat Bank ceased functioning soon after the award of December, 1950, and in the light of various other applications of other employees in which only retrenchment relief was awarded.
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour had by Notification No.
It therefore purported to give to the appellant two months numberice of its intention to terminate the said award and his services in terms of s. 19 6 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The letter further proceeded to state that the appellant had number so far reported himself for duty at its office at Delhi which was the only office that it had in India since March 10, 1951, and which was its Head Office and registered office before that date.
September 17.
106 of 1952.
Nothing further transpired and on October 8, 1952, the appellant filed the petition under s. 20 2 of the Act for companyputation of the money value of the benefit of reinstatement because of number implementation of the direc tions companytained in the award by the respondent.
Veda Vyasa, K. L. Mehta and I. S. Sawhney, for the respond ent.
He was also given promo tions on October 1, 1946, and on October 1, 1947, and was drawing Rs.
30 per month at the time when he was dis charged by the respondent on August 5, 1949, on the plea that he had become surplus to the requirement of the re spondent.
This appeal with special leave is directed against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow, companyfirming, on appeal, the award made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in a dispute between the appellant and the respondent.
170 10 200 20 400 and was given three increments when the first increment fell due as from October 1, 1945.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATIJ.
240 per month plus a special allowance for a servant of Rs.
The appellant applied for and obtained special leave to appeal against this decision of the Labour Appel late Tribunal and that is bow the present appeal is before us.
The letter dated April 3, 1952, addressed by the respondent to the appellant was under the circumstances characterized by the appellant as evidently addressed to him with some ulte rior motive.
It further stated that without prejudice and with a view to close his case it had offered him salary upto June 19, 1952, by its letter dated November 15, 1952, under intimation to the Conciliation Officer, Central Gov ernment, New Delhi, but the appellant had number replied to the same.
1,000.
