Judgement

      Patanjali Sastri C.J.I.- This is an appeal by special leave from a decision dated 22-9-1952 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta setting aside an award dated 9-2-1952 made by the Industrial Tribunal constituted to adjudicate on certain disputes between the appellant, the Punjab National Bank Ltd., Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and its workmen, the respondents represented by their Union.

2. The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated. Several other disputes between the parties had already been referred on 21-2-1950 to another Industrial Tribunal presided over by Sri K. S. Campbell-Puri, and during the pendency of the proceedings before the said Tribunal, the Bank alleged that the respondents along with other workmen numbering more than a thousand illegally commenced a general strike on 18-4-1951 in connection with a fresh dispute. Thereupon notice was issued to the strikers that unless they returned to work by 24-4-1951, they would be deemed to have left service of their own accord. That notice having been ignored by the strikers a second notice was issued to them on 27-4-1951 terminating their service. The Government of India thereupon intervened, and as a result of the discussions held between the Government officials and the Bank, the latter agreed to take back all the employees except 150 against whom the Bank had objections on account of their alleged subversive activities and other objectionable and unlawful conduct before and during the strike.

On 2-7-1951, the Government of India constituted a Tribunal to decide the questions regarding the dismissals, etc., of the aforesaid 150 employees, and that Tribunal, after calling for the statements of case on behalf of the parties and hearing them, made an award on 9-2-1951 (sic) refusing reinstatement on the sole ground that the respondents had gone on an illegal strike in contravention of S. 23 (b), Industrial Disputes Act, and that the Bank was entitled to dismiss them. The Tribunal, however, granted to the respondents compensation by way of salary and allowances at half the rates from the date of dismissal to the date of the publication of the award.

3. The respondents appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal at Calcutta which, while agreeing with the Industrial Tribunal that the strike was illegal, held that it was condoned by the Bank and it was, therefore, not open to it to justify the dismissal of the respondents on the ground that they had participated in the illegal strike. The Appellate Tribunal further held that the dismissal of the respondents was wrongful because no charges were framed against any of them in respect of their alleged acts of violence or subversive activities and their explanation was not called for. The Appellate Tribunal accordingly thought that further evidence was necessary on certain specific points mentioned in its order and reserved its decision as to whether the respondents were entitled to reinstatement till after such evidence was taken.

4. 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 employ these respondents afresh in 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 22-9-1952 obviating the further enquiry directed by the said order.

5. We consider it unnecessary to express any opinion on the question of condonation or waiver of the illegal strike : f