The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly v. Patanjali

The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated. Several other disputes between the parties had already been referred on February 21, 1950, to ano ther Industrial Tribunal presided over by Sri K. S. 688 . SUPREME COUR'l' REPORrs (1953] k h · h the Bank. w;s . -;;; 1 PunJab .,ationa Bank Ltd. v. Patanjali Sastri a. J. terminating h t e respondents along wit Campbell-Puri, and during the pendency of the pro- ceedings before the said Tribunal, the Bank alleged ot er wor men numbering more than a t'.1ousand illegally commenced Employees of a general strike on April 18, 1951, in connection with a fresh dispute. Thereu-:ion, notice was issued to the strikers that unless they returned to work by April 24, 1951, they would be deemed to have left service of their ,own accord. '!.'hat notice having been ignored by the strikers a s~cond noticEl, was issued to them on their service. The April 27, 1951, Government of India thereupon intervened, and as a result of the discussions held between the Govern ment officials and the Ba.uk, the latter agreed to take back all the employees except 150 against whom the Bank had objections on account of their alleged sub versive activities and other objectionable and unlaw ful conduct before and during the strike. On July 2, 1951, the Government of India constituted a 'l'ribu ual to decide the questions regarding the dismissals etc. of the aforesaid 150 employees, and that 'l'ribu nal, after calling for the statements of case on behalf of the parties and hearing them, made an award on J<'ebruary 9, 1951, refusing reinstatement on the sole ground that the respondents had gone on an illegal strike in contravention of section 23(b) of. the Indus 'trial Disputes Act, and that the Bank was entitled to dismiss them. The Tribunal, however, granted to the respondents compens.ation by way of salary and allow- · ances at half the rates from the date of dismissal to the date of the publication of the award. 'l'he· respondents appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal at Calcutta which, while agreeing with the Industrial 'l'ribunal that the strike was illegal, held that it was condoned by the Bank and it was, there fore, not open to it to justify the dismissal of the res pondents on the ground that they had participated in the illegal strike. The Appellate Tribunal further held that the dismissal of the respondents was wron.g ful because no charges were framed against any of them in respect of their alleged aets of violence or <

8.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S 689 ·subversive activities and their explanation was not called for. The Appellate Tribunal accordingly h h h t oug t t at furt er ev1 ence was nece1<sary on certain specific points mentioned in its order and re- served its decision as to whether the respondents were Employees of entitled to reinstatemsn~ till after such evidence was taken. 1958 . -b" . . Punja l••t•oi>a< Banlc Ltd. v. the Bank. . d h Palanjali Sastri O. J. Learned counsel for the Bank advanced a two-fold contention in support of this appeal. He challenged the correctness of the conclusion that the Bank had, in the circumstances of the case, condoned the illegal strike by the respondents, and maintained that it was open to the Bank to rely upon the illegal strike as justifying the dismissal of the respondents. On that basis learned counsel argued that there could no longer be any question of reinstating the respondents in the service of the Bank as such reinstatement would in law amount to compelling the Bank to em ploy these respondents afresh iu its service, which the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to do. He accordingly submitted that this Court should set aside the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal dated September 22, 1952, obviating the further enquiry directed by the said order. We consider it unnecessary to express any opinion on the question of condonation or waiver of the illegal strike; for, assuming that there was no such condo nation or waiver and it was open to the Bank to r,!lly upon the illegal strike as a valid ground for dismis sing the respondents, we are of opinion that sec tion 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, furnishes a short answer to the further contention that the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order rein statement of the respondents. That section provides, inter alia, that no employer shall, during the pen dency of any proceedings before a Tribunal in respect of any industrial dispute, discharge by way of dismis sal or otherwise, any workman concerned in the dispute save with the permission in writing of the said 'l'ribunal. Admittedly, no such permission was obtained. If the pendency of the proceedings before 690 SUPREME cotr:RT REPORTS [1953) 1953 Bank Ltd. v. Patanjali. Sastri a. J. Sri Campbell-Puri made the strike of the respondents Punjab Natwnazillegal under section 23(b) of the Act, the dismissal of the respondents by the Bank without obtaining his permission as required by section 33· was also illegal. Employ"' of We see no force in the argument of the Attorney the Ba,.k. General that the section has no application to the case as strikes and lock-outs are dealt with in a differ ent chapter, Chapter V, and as the respondents were not concerned in the disputes pending adjudication before Sri Campbell-Puri. The terms of section 33 are wide enough to cover the present case, and the fact that it finds place in Chapter VII headed "Mis cellaneous" is by no means inconsistent with its general application to all cases of discharge on what ever ground it may be based. This is shown by the re cent amendment of the section by Act XL VIII of 1950 which has omitted the words "except for misconduct not connected with the dispute" in the newly substi tuted section. It is equally 'clear that the respondents are concerned in the disputes pending before Sri Campbell-Puri, as it is conceded that any award made by him would bind the respondents. Section 33 being thus applicable to the case, the contention of the Bank that the dismissal of the respondents was law ful and that in consequence the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct their reinstatement falls to the ground. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the ord'er made by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and we accordingly clismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal d·ismissed. Agent for the appellant: Ganpat Rai. Agent for the respondent: V. P. K. Nambiyar