PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED ALL INDIA PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION Vs. ALL INDIA PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION:PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (who delivered the judgment on his behalf and on behalf of Sinha, J.)-These three appeals arise out of an industrial dispute between the Punjab National Bank, Ltd., (hereinafter called the Bank) and two sets of its employees represented by the All-India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation (hereinafter called the Federation) and the U. P. Bank Employees Union (hereinafter called the Union) respectively. On July 2, 1951, this dispute was referred by the Central Government for adjudication to the industrial tribunal of which Mr. A. N. Sen, a retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court, was the sole member. It raised two issues. The first was whether the 150 workmen mentioned in Sch. II attached to the reference had been wrongfully dismissed by the Bank, and the second had reference to the claim for reinstatement and payment of wages and allowances from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. The reference thus made has gone through a long and protracted career and the final decision of the dispute would be reached after we dispose of the present appeals. In order to appreciate the points raised for our decision in these appeals it is necessary to indicate briefly at the outset the salient points of controversy between the parties, the findings made by the original tribunal, the conclusions reached by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in its interlocutory and final judgments and the decision of this Court in the appeal which had been brought before it by the Bank against the interlocutory judgment of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) The 150 employees, whose dismissal has given rise to the present dispute are spread over several branches of the Bank. 52 of them work at its head office in Delhi, 15 in Bombay, 73 in East Punjab and 10 in U. P. 140 workmen in the first three areas are represented by the Federation while the last 10 in U. P. are represented by the Union. All of these employees took part in strikes which, according to the Bank, were illegal. The strikes in which the two respective groups of workmen took part were, however, for different reasons.

(3.) The strike in which the Federation took part was the result of the suspension by the Bank of its typist Sabharwal employed in the Delhi Branch of the Bank on April 17, 1951. It appears that Sabharwal, who was the Secretary of the Punjab National Bank Employees' Union, Delhi, had applied for leave for seven days on April, 3, 1951, but his application was rejected; even so he absented himself from duty and went to Bombay. As soon as he resumed his duties on April 14, 1951, he was supplied with a written charge sheet for absence without leave which he refused to accept. It was then sent to him by registered post, and on April 17 he was suspended. This suspension was followed by an immediate pendown strike at the head office of the Delhi Branch subsequent to which the Bank suspended 60 other employees. This led to a general strike in Delhi and many other branches and it commenced at different dates from April 18 to 20, 1951. On April 21-22, 1951, the Bank issued notices calling upon all striking members of the staff to report for duty by 10 A.M. on April 24, 1951, and it warned them that if they did not comply with the notice it would be taken that they had voluntarily ceased to be its employees and their services would be deemed to have terminated from that date. This was followed by another notice on April 24 which announced that the strikers who had failed to report for duty as aforesaid had ceased to be the employees of the Bank from April 24, 1951. An option was, however, given to the strikers who were still willing to rejoin duty to apply in that behalf and explain their action in staying away. It is common ground that the 140 employees represented by the Federation who had taken part in the strike were dismissed by the Bank for absence due to the strike. That is the genesis of the dispute between the Bank and the Federation in relation to the 140 employees of the Bank.