1959 (9) TMI 72 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Wrongful dismissal of 150 employees.
2. Claim for reinstatement and payment of wages and allowances.
3. Legality of the strikes.
4. Allegations of victimization and unfair labor practices.
5. Compliance with Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. Validity of the reference and the Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction.
7. Admissibility and relevance of evidence.
8. Impact of pen-down strikes on reinstatement claims.
9. Subversive activities and their effect on reinstatement.
10. Employment of new hands and its impact on reinstatement.
11. Natural justice and procedural fairness.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Wrongful Dismissal of 150 Employees:
The dispute arose from the dismissal of 150 employees from Punjab National Bank, spread across various branches, who participated in strikes deemed illegal by the Bank. The original tribunal held that the strikes were illegal and justified the dismissals solely on this ground without considering evidence of specific acts of violence or victimization.

2. Claim for Reinstatement and Payment of Wages and Allowances:
The employees sought reinstatement and back wages. The tribunal initially rejected reinstatement but ordered some payments on compassionate grounds. The appellate tribunal later directed reinstatement of 136 employees, finding the dismissals wrongful, but refused reinstatement to 14 employees, ordering compensation instead.

3. Legality of the Strikes:
The strikes were considered illegal under Section 23(b) read with Section 24(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as they were initiated while arbitration proceedings were pending. Despite the illegality, the appellate tribunal found that the Bank had waived its right to penalize employees for participating in the strike through an agreement with the Central Government.

4. Allegations of Victimization and Unfair Labor Practices:
The employees alleged that the dismissals were part of a concerted plan by the Bank to victimize active trade union members. The Bank contended that the employees were guilty of violence and subversive acts. The appellate tribunal allowed evidence on victimization and found that the Bank had not justified the dismissals based on specific acts of violence.

5. Compliance with Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act:
The Supreme Court held that the dismissals were illegal under Section 33 of the Act, which requires express permission from the tribunal for dismissals during the pendency of industrial disputes. The Bank's failure to comply with this provision made the dismissals void.

6. Validity of the Reference and the Industrial Tribunal's Jurisdiction:
The appellate tribunal rejected contentions regarding the invalidity of the reference and the ultra vires nature of the Act's provisions. The Supreme Court upheld the tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, including the merits of the dismissals.

7. Admissibility and Relevance of Evidence:
The appellate tribunal found substantial parts of the Bank's documentary evidence unreliable, noting instances of tampering and mass-produced affidavits. The tribunal allowed evidence on specific points, including victimization and past service records, but excluded vague and irrelevant items.

8. Impact of Pen-Down Strikes on Reinstatement Claims:
The appellate tribunal held that mere participation in a pen-down strike, which falls within the definition of a strike under Section 2(q) of the Act, does not automatically disqualify employees from reinstatement. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that peaceful and non-violent participation does not justify denying reinstatement.

9. Subversive Activities and Their Effect on Reinstatement:
The appellate tribunal identified 14 employees as actively involved in subversive activities based on specific evidence, including admissions by H.L. Puri. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the responsibility for subversive documents could not be attributed to all employees collectively.

10. Employment of New Hands and Its Impact on Reinstatement:
The Bank argued that reinstatement would be unfair due to the employment of new hands. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that wrongful dismissals necessitate reinstatement regardless of subsequent hires.

11. Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness:
The Supreme Court found no violation of natural justice in the appellate tribunal's proceedings. The employees had the opportunity to present their case, and the tribunal's findings were based on substantial evidence and reasonable inferences.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Bank's appeals, upholding the reinstatement of 136 employees and compensation for the remaining 14. The employees' appeal was allowed in part, directing reinstatement for Munna Lal Gupta due to inconsistencies in the tribunal's findings. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and compliance with statutory provisions in industrial disputes.