SAMBANDAM A R Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein was employed as a cashier in respondent 2 bank in its Cochin branch. The petitioner was suspended on 14 September 1961, pending enquiry into certain charges against him and was dismissed from service on 26 December 1961. The nonemployment of the petitioner was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, and the Industrial tribunal on 12 April 1962, in Industrial Dispute No. 8 of 1962, passed an award holding that the dismissal of the petitioner was unjustified and directing MB reinstatement with back-wages and without break in the continuity of service. After the award, the petitioner was not reinstated, and respondent 2 filed Writ Petition No. 730 of 1962 on the file of this Court against the said award. During the pendency of the writ petition respondent 2 had obtained orders of this Court staying the implementation of the award in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 4628 of 1962. The writ petition itself was dismissed by this Court on 8 January 1965, and a petition for special leave to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated on 13 February 1966.

(2.) AFTER the reinstatement, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the labour court, Madras, claiming wages for the period from 14 September 1961 to the date of reinstatement, viz. , 13 February 1966. In addition to his salary, he also claimed what was called cashier or key allowance at the rate of Rs. 10 per month from September 1961 to December 1962 and thereafter at Rs. 11 per month. He further claimed bonus for the concerned period.

(3.) RESPONDENT 2 contested the claim of the petitioner. The ground put forward by respondent 2 was that the petitioner was not entitled to the special allowance known as the key or cashier allowance, during the period when he was out of employment, because that allowance, was payable, only if he was entrusted with the key which was not the case here. The second ground was that after the award the petitioner engaged himself in lorry business and was also employed elsewhere and, therefore, he was disentitled to claim any salary. One other contention put forward by respondent 2 was that out of any money that might be determined to be payable to the petitioner, respondent 2 was entitled to retain a sum of Rs. 2,000, by way of security deposit, because a cashier has to make such a security deposit.