http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NANAK CHAND JAIN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/1963

BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. WANCHOO, K.N.

CITATION:  1965 AIR  122            1964 SCR  (5) 621

ACT: Industrial  Dispute-Sastry award-Requirement of  payment  of one  month’s wages in lieu of notice of  termination-Payment of three month’s wages-If sufficient compliance.

HEADNOTE: The respondent who was an employee of the appellant Bank was acquitted of the charge of misappropriation of the  latter’s money.   But on an enquiry by the appellant  the  respondent was found guilty of carelessness and it was decided that his service  should  be  terminated.  In  accordance  with  this decision he was informed of the termination of his  services and the appellant tendered three months’ pay and  allowances in  lieu  of notice.  Since industrial dispute  was  pending between  the appellant and its employees the former made  an application to the Tribunal under s. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for approval of its action.  The Tribunal held that the payment of three months pay in lieu of  notice in  terms  of  para 521(2)(c) of the Sastry  Award  did  not amount to compliance with the requirement of payment of  one month’s  wages under the proviso to s. 33(2) of the Act  The Bank  filed the present appeal on special leave  granted  by this Court. Held:     The payment for a longer period should be held  to include  payment  for  the shorter period  and  where  three months pay and allowances had been paid under the provisions of para 521(2)(c) of the Sastry Award no further payment  of one months wages under the proviso to s. 33(2) is required.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.126 of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the order dated April 3,  1962, of the Central Government Labour Court at Delhi in O.P.  No. 15 of 1961. C.K.  Daphtary,  Attorney-General,  H.N.  Sanyal  Solicitor- General,  S.V.  Gupte, Additional  Solicitor  General,  K.B. Mehta, H.L. Anand and Vidhya Sagar, the appellant. Anand Prakash and S.N. Bhandari, for the respondent. December  2, 1963.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

by DAs GUPTA J. The respondent, Nanak Chand 622 Jain, was a money tester in the cash department of the  Agra Branch of the Imperial Bank of India.  On December 20,  1952 it  was detected that a packet containing 10 pieces  of  100 rupee  notes  shroffed by another employee of the  Bank  and handed  over  by  him to the respondent  were  missing.   In connection with this the respondent and four other employees of the Bank were prosecuted, the trial in the Sessions Court ending with their acquittal-the respondent having been given the  benefit of doubt.  Thereafter on December 10, 1954  the Bank  served  on  the  respondent  a  charge-sheet  alleging carelessness  and dereliction of duty.  An enquiry was  held and  the  Enquiry  Officer found  the’  charge  against  the respondent established.  On a consideration of the report of the  Enquiry  Officer  the Bank  decided  to  terminate  his services  with effect from May 16, 1955 by paying him  three months pay and allowances.  The respondent was given further hearing as regards the nature of the proposed punishment and thereafter his services were terminated as from the close of business  on  May  16, 1955.  The validity  of  the  enquiry proceedings  was challenged by the respondent on the  ground that  he  had  not been given adequate  facility  for  being represented by a Union official of his choice and ultimately after  a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal that  the employee  had  an  unqualified  option  in  regard  to   the selection  of  persons  who  would  represent  him  at   the departmental   enquiry  a  fresh  enquiry  was  held   after withdrawing the order of termination of his services.   This fresh  enquiry. was held on the 21st and 22nd  of  November, 1956,  On this occasion also the enquiry officer  found  the charges against the respondent proved.After consideration of the report and after giving the respondent an opportunity to show cause why the reposed punishment of termination of  his services  on  payment  of three months’ salary  in  lieu  of notice  should  not be imposed on him the  Bank  decided  in November 1960 to terminate his. services by giving him three months’  salary in lieu of notice in terms of Para  521  (2) (c) of the Sastry Award. 623 As an industrial dispute between the Bank and its  employees was pending before the National Industrial Tribunal at  this time,  the Bank made an application on November 21, 1960  to that Tribunal under s. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes  Act for  approval of its action in terminating the  services  of the respondent.  Before making this application the Bank had informed the respondent by its letter dated November 4, 1960 of  its  decision to terminate his services and  tendered  a payment  order for Rs. 450.71 being his pay  and  allowances for   three  months.   The  National   Industrial   Tribunal transferred  this  application to  the  Central  Government, Labour  Court  at  Delhi,  for  disposal.   Resisting   this application the respondent contended inter alia that he  had not  been  paid wages for one month as  required  under  the proviso  to  s.  33(2)  and so  the  application  should  be dismissed.   An application under s. 33A of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act  was also filed by the respondent  before  the Central  Government Labour Court at Delhi, complaining  that the  Bank  had contravened the provisions of s.  33  by  not paying  him  the  one  month’s pay  as  required  under  the proviso.   This application was resisted by the  Bank  which contended that the application was not maintainable and  the action taken by it was legal and justified.  It was urged by the Bank that there had not been any contravention o section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

33(2)  as alleged by the employee as three months’  pay  and allowances  had  been  paid.  The  Labour  Court  held  that payment of three months’ salary in terms of Para 521 (2) (c) of  the Sastry Award did not amount to compliance  with  the requirement  of  payment  of one  month’s  wages  under  the proviso  to  s.  33  (2).   It  held  accordingly  that  the application  under  s. 33A was maintainable  and  fixed  the application  for further hearing on other issues on a  later date. When  the application under s. 33 (2) (b) of the  Industrial Disputes  Act  that had been filed by the Bank came  up  for hearing  before the Court the Presiding Officer,  Mr.  Vyas, held himself bound by 624 the  decision  of his predecessor Mr.  Krishnamurty  in  the application  under s. 33A that there had been  contravention of this requirement of payment of one month’s pay under  the proviso.   Accordingly, he rejected the  Bank’s  application for  approval to terminate the services of  the  respondent. It  is against this order that the present appeal  has  been filed by the Bank by special leave. The  only question for our consideration is when payment  of three months’ salary has been made in terms of Para 521  (2) (c)  of  the  Sastry Award, is it correct to  say  that  the requirement  of  payment  of one month’s  salary  under  the proviso  to s. 33(2) has not been complied with?  On  behalf of  the  Bank it is urged that it is unreasonable  to  think that  three months’ salary already paid did not include  the wages  for  one month required under the  proviso.   On  the other  hand  learned  counsel appearing  on  behalf  of  the respondent  contends that the payment of three  months’  pay and allowances as provided in para 521 (2) (c) of the Sastry Award  has a different purpose from that of payment  of  one month’s  wages in the proviso to s. 33 (2).  In  support  of this argument he has drawn our attention to the words of the provision as regards this payment in para 521 (2) (c). These  words  are shall be liable only  for  termination  of service  with  three months’ pay and allowances in  lieu  of notice...  . . . . . . . " According to the learned  counsel the  use of the words "in lieu of notice" in this  provision marks  the difference in character of  the  payment-provided for in the proviso to s. 33(2) and it is clearly not in lieu of  notice.   It appears to us that the words  "in  lieu  of notice"  in para 521(2) (c) have not the significance  which the  learned  counsel attributes to them.  We do  not  think that the Sastry Award intended that the services of such  an employee  could  be terminated by giving him  three  months’ notice without paying him three months’ pay and  allowances. Though  the words "in lieu of notice" have been used  it  is clear that three months’ pay and allowances have to be  paid in every 625 such  case of termination of service.  The object in  making this  provision appears therefore to be the same as  in  the proviso,   viz.,   to  give  the  employee   some   monetary assistance.   It  is difficult to see  why  therefore  three months’  pay  and  allowances paid under para  521  (2)  (c) should  not  be held to include pay for a lesser  period  as provided under the proviso to s. 33(2). In  our opinion, the payment for a longer period  should  be held  to  include payment for the shorter period  and  where three  months’  pay and allowances had been paid  under  the provisions  of  para 521 (2) (c) no further payment  of  one month’s wages under the proviso to s. 33 (2) is required. We  have  therefore come to the conclusion that  the  Labour

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Court erred in dismissing the Bank’s application under s. 33 (2)  on  the ground that the requirement or payment  of  one month’s wages had not been complied with. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Labour Court and direct that the application under s. 33 (2) (b) be disposed of on merits.  There will be no order as  to costs. Appeal allowed.