R L KAPUR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises in this Civil Writ Petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which has been instituted by Shri R. L. Kapur, against the Punjab National Bank and Shri Anand Narain Kaul, Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court, is a short one. The applicant had moved an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Labour Court, claiming that he was entitled to certain benefits under the Shastri Award. It seems from the facts stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner originally joined the Punjab National Bank Limited as a cashier in its branch office at Lahore and was later transferred to its Central Office, Cash Section. He claims that he migrated from Pakistan in September, 1947, and reported for duty in October,1947.He was eventually re-employed as Assistant Cashier in the Civil Line Branch of the Bank with effect from 19th April, 1951. The petitioner seems to have claimed that he was entitled to the benefits of his Pakistan service and thus claimed two additional increments. I have only stated the aspects of the claim as set out in the Writ Petition, because this case is not concerned with the correctness of the claim of the petitioner, nor I am concerned with the facts and circumstances giving rise to the same. I have just stated the mere outlines of the claim for the purpose of stating the facts. There are several details given in the petition, as to why the petitioner is entitled to further benefits under the Shastri Award, which I think, are unnecessary for the purpose or deciding the present petition, It is sufficient to say that when the petition was heard bythe Central Government Labour Court, it was rejected on the summary ground that it did not arise from an existing right and was, therefore, a case which fell under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held that the claim was belated, and although, no limitation was prescribed, there was no reason to encourage belated claims. I shall presently deal with the exact scope of the order by which the application was rejected. The order sought to be revised was passed on 20th July, 1966, and the Writ Petition has been pending in the Punjab High Court and in this Court ever since.

(2.) When this petition came before me for hearing earlier, it was found that the Punjab National Bank Limited, which was the first respondent, had to be substituted by the Nationalised Bank and this was allowed per ord?r dated 21st November, 1973, passed in C.M. No. 2377- W of 1973. I have thus heard the petitioner as well as the counsel for the Punjab National Bank.

(3.) I am concerned in this Writ Petition with the rejection of the petitioner's application, not on the merits, but on the summary ground as stated in the order dated 20th July, 1966, passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Labour Court, Delhi, which was then presided over by Shri Anand Narain Kaul, respondent No. 2. The application under Section 33C(2)ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was replied to by the Punjab National Bank Ltd., who raised apreliminary objection claiming that the petitioner's application did not fall within the purview of Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it involved determination of Issues, which only fell under Section 10(1) of the Act, The decision on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Rajagopalan (P. S.) and came to the conclusion that two circumstances had to be complied before Section 33C of the Act could be applied, as stated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. It quoted the following passage from the judgment:-