DHANALAKSHMI BANK LTD Vs. PARAMESWARA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent in O. P. No. 3157 of 1974 is the appellant in this appeal. That was a writ petition filed by the General Secretary, Dhanalakshmi Bank Employees' Union, Trichur - 1st respondent in this appeal - seeking to quash the order Ext. P4 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut, dismissing CMP No. 41 of 1974 filed by him praying for an interim order restraining the appellant herein - The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., from taking any further proceedings pursuant to a circular issued by the bank on 23rd May, 1974 and a newspaper advertisement published by the Bank on 30-5-1974 announcing its decision to conduct a test for promotion of personnel from the clerical cadre to the category of junior officers and for direct recruitment to the cadre of executive trainees. That petition was filed in I. D. No. 61 of 1974 instituted by the first respondent herein under S.33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act. The complaint raised in that petition was that during the pendency of an industrial dispute in which one of the questions referred related to the promotion policy of the bank, the bank had contravened the provisions of S.33 of the Act by altering to the prejudice of the workmen the conditions of service applicable to them. The Industrial Tribunal) by its order Ext. P4 held that there was no provision of law under which it possessed the power to restrain the management from proceeding further in pursuance of the circular and advertisement referred to in the application for interim relief. On this ground the Tribunal dismissed CMP No. 41 of 1974. The learned single Judge allowed the petition by a very brief judgment which reads as under:

(2.) It is contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that the view taken by the learned single Judge that the Industrial Tribunal was vested with jurisdiction to grant the interim relief prayed for in CMP No. 41 of 1974 is erroneous in law and that the decision in 1969 (71) ITR 815 relied on by the learned single Judge does not support the said view. After hearing counsel on both sides we have come to the conclusion that the aforesaid contention of the appellant has to be upheld and that this Writ Appeal has to be allowed. The jurisdiction under S.33A will get attracted only when it is shown that an employer has contravened the provisions of S.33 during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal. The purpose underlying the conferment of the said jurisdiction on the Tribunal has been explained by the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. All India Punjab National Bank Employees' Federation and another ( AIR 1960 SC 160 ) (para 31).

(3.) In the light of what is stated above it is clear that the learned single Judge was not justified in interfering with the order Ext. P4 passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had taken a correct view regarding the scope and extent of its powers while functioning under S.33A of the Act. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed; the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and O. P. No. 3157 of 1974 is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs.