Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
BANK OF INDIA LTD. - Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF INDIA - Respondent
Matter 103 Of 1953
Decided On : JUNE 25, 1954
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Reinstatement - Principles governing - Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion of the original Tribunal - Substantial question of law - What constitutes.
Fact of the Case:
Temporary employees of a bank participated in a strike and were subsequently dismissed. The Industrial Tribunal found that the dismissal was unjustified but declined to order reinstatement, instead granting six months' basic salary plus allowances as relief. The Appellate Tribunal held that the original Tribunal had erred in not following the principles governing reinstatement and that there was a substantial question of law involved, allowing an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as it did not involve any substantial question of law. The discretion to grant reinstatement is vested in the original Tribunal and can only be interfered with if exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. The Appellate Tribunal cannot substitute its own findings for those of the original Tribunal or consider the weight to be attached to the factors considered by the original Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 2. Whether there was a substantial question of law involved.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The discretion to grant reinstatement is vested in the original Tribunal and can only be interfered with if exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. 2. The Appellate Tribunal cannot substitute its own findings for those of the original Tribunal or consider the weight to be attached to the factors considered by the original Tribunal. 3. The question of whether to grant reinstatement is a matter of discretion based on the facts and circumstances of each case and does not involve a principle of law. 4. The Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to cases involving substantial questions of law.
Final Decision: The High Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the Appellate Tribunal and prohibiting the respondents from acting upon or giving effect to the said decision.
( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows : The petitioner is the Bank of India Ltd. (hereinafter called the Bank ). Respondents 2-13 were employed by the Bank in its office at 23b, Netaji Subhas Road. Respondents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 were appointed as clerks on probation, respondents 7, 8 and 9 were temporary clerks and respondents 11, 12 and 13 were temporary sepoys, also employed as peons.
( 2 ) THESE persons were appointed at various periods between March and May 1951. According to the terms of their appointment, they were on probation and were liable to be dismissed within six months of their appointment, or at the expiration of that period, without assignment of any reason whatever for such dismissal. It is not disputed before me that all of them were in temporary employment and they were not confirmed and made permanent at any time. The employees of the Bank were having disputes with the Bank for some time. Ultimately, notice was given through their Union that unless their grievances were acceded to, there would be a general strike on 24-12-1951. This was immediately prior to the annual closing of accounts and the intention was obviously to paralyse the working of the Bank.
( 3 ) AT the relevant time, the Bank had 37 temporary employees including the said respondents, and an effort was made to ensure that the work of the Bank was carried on through the temporary employees, if there was a strike by the permanent hands.
( 4 ) ON 23rd and 24th December 1951, the respondents 2-10 except 4, absented themselves from work. On 24-12-1951, notice was given by the Agent that temporary clerks and clerks on probation were quite on a different footing to that of the permanent employees and that they would cease to be in the Bank's employment if they absented themselves from duty during the strike, without leave; and that the Bank would not under any circumstances entertain any request for re-employment.
( 5 ) ON 25th, 26th and 27th December, 1951, not only the aforesaid respondents but respondents 4, 11, 12 and 13 also did not join work. Alt other temporary hands obeyed the direction of the Bank and attended work. On 24-12-1951, the Agent wrote individual letters to some of the respondents asking them to join duty on or before 27-12-1951, in default of which their services would be liable to termination. Similar letters were addressed to the other respondents subsequently. None of the respondents, however, carried out the request of the Agent and none did attend work. They did not even send any reply to the letters. On 27-12-1951 and on 31-12-1951, the Bank issued letters terminating the services of respondents 2-13. The Bank has subsequently appointed other persons in the place of the said respondents.
( 6 ) BY notification dated 22-7-1952, the dispute regarding respondents 2-13 was referred for adjudication to an Industrial Tribunal formed by Shri K. S. Campbell-Puri. The dispute that was referred was as follows:"whether the termination of the services of the undermentioned persons (meaning respondents 2-13. from the Calcutta Branch of the Bank was justified and, if not, what relief should be accorded to them. "
( 7 ) THE Tribunal decided that the employer could not be allowed to treat the temporary and probationary employees working in the same industry, on a different footing to the permanent employees, in the matter of redress of grievances through a strike. It then proceeded to consider whether the conduct of the employees justified their discharge. According to the tribunal, if the employees were dismissed after six months, the contract provided by implication that reasons must be assigned and no reasons were assigned. This is of course entirely incorrect. Because there is a clause that the employer could dismissal any time within six months or at the expiry thereof without assigning any reason, does not give rise to any implied agreement to assign cause after the expiry of that period, for a dismiss
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
