Back
2009 Supreme(SC) 500
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TARUN CHATTERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. SIRPURKAR
Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Government of India & Another - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.1718 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.29419 of 2008)
Date of Judgment : 18-03-2009
For the Appellant:Ashok H. Desai, Kailash Vasudev, Sr. Advocates, Siddharth Dias, V.D. Khanna, Menaka Guruswamy, Advocates For the Respondents: In Person.
IMPORTANT POINT
Interim award of Industrial Tribunal taking care of interests of both – the appellant and the respondent – will not be unjustified.
Headnote:Labour law – Termination – Respondent terminated due to abolition of post – Industrial dispute pending before Tribunal – Tribunal by way of interim award directing payment of Rs. 30000 pm till disposal of reference – Apprehension of the appellant that if the respondent loses in Tribunal it would be difficult to recover the amount being paid/to be paid per month – Tribunal had already thought of the eventuality and directed that the amount may be adjusted from the retiral benefits payable to her – Not unjustified – Tribunal directed to dispose of the mater within two months. (Para 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The respondent No. 2 herein Mrs. Manju Saxena was the employee of the appellant-Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. drawing a salary of Rs.58,330/- per month with a total annual remuneration of Rs.7,32,736/-.
In May, 2005, the Bank reviewed its working norms, staff structure and other relevant issues governing its operations and it was decided that the various posts and positions held by the staff were to be discontinued.
On 01.10.2005 her services were terminated after paying her six month’s salary as compensation in lieu of notice period as provided in the contract of employment and compensation equivalent to 15 days salary for each completed year of service amounting to Rs.8,17,071/- which was accepted by her.
A dispute was raised regarding this termination and hence the dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT).
Thereafter, the second respondent, by her various applications sought for interim relief along with her pleadings before the Industrial Tribunal. The application came to be allowed and the Tribunal directed the appellant-Bank to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month to the claimant regularly till the disposal of the said case. This was to be treated as an interim award.
The appellant Bank challenged the said award by way of a Writ Petition (No. 12606/2006) and the interim order was stayed till further orders. It was directed that the second respondent should be paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards the litigation expenses. It was also ordered that the proceedings before the Tribunal would continue, however, final award would not be passed. This interim order was confirmed by the Division Bench.
The Division Bench dismissed the matter as also other pending applications.
Finding of the Court:
The interim award is not unjustified.
Result:
Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :-
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent No. 2 herein Mrs. Manju Saxena was the employee of the appellant-Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called ‘the bank for short). According to the appellant, she drew a salary of Rs.58,330/- per month with a total annual remuneration of Rs.7,32,736/-. In May, 2005, the Bank reviewed its working norms, staff structure and other relevant issues governing its operations and it was decided that the various posts and positions held by the staff were to be discontinued. One such post to be discontinued was held by the second respondent. A severance package and/or alternate employment to all such persons whose posts were to be discontinued were offered. Accordingly such proposal was made to the second respondent also, but she declined to accept the package.
3. On 01.10.2005 her services were terminated after paying her six months salary as compensation in lieu of notice period as provided in the contract of employment and compensation equivalent to 15 days salary for each completed year of service amounting to Rs.8,17,071/-. This sum was allegedly accepted by the second respondent.
4. However, a dispute was raised regarding this termination and hence the Government of India, the first respondent herein referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The reference was as under:
"Whether the action of the Chief Executive, HSBC, India Area Management Office, 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Road, P.O.128, Mumbai-400 001, in terminating the services of Mrs. Manju Saxena, Staff Officer w.e.f. 01.10.2005 without giving her full terminal benefits is just, valid and legal? If not, to what benefits the workman is entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter."
5. Thereafter, the second respondent, by her various applications sought for interim relief along with her pleadings before the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter called ‘Tribunal). The application came to be allowed and vide order dated 30.06.2006, the Tribunal directed the appellant-Bank to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month to the claimant regularly till the disposal of the said case. This was to be treated as an interim award.
6. The appellant Bank challenged the said award by way of a Writ Petition No. 12606/2006 wherein the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court stayed the interim order till further orders. The learned Single Judge was pleased to direct vide his order dated 15.12.2006 that the second respondent should be paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards the litigation expenses. It was also ordered that the proceedings before the Tribunal would continue, however, final award would not be passed. This order dated 15.12.2006 was, of course, an interim order. This order was confirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No.33/207 by order dated 25.01.2007.
7. On 08.02.2007 the second respondent filed an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act. On 07.09.2007 a letters patent appeal No.1194/2007 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge restraining the Tribunal from pronouncing the award pending the disposal of the writ petition was disposed of. The matter thus was pending before the learned Single Judge when the order dated 07.09.2007 disposing of the letters patent appeal No.1194/2007 came up before this Court by way of a special leave petition. This Court dismissed the same on 07.03.2008 and directed the High Court to dispose of the Writ Petition on merits and in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of communication of the order.
8. In the meantime, the appellant also filed the rejoinder affidavit to the counter filed by the second respondent. On 23.05.20008, the application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act was decided by the learned Single Judge. In that order, no relief was granted under Section 17-B. On 24.09.2008, the Writ Petition No.12602/2006 was also disposed of. It was held that the referen
