- (1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the orders of the Lucknow Bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India (hereinafter to be referred to as "The Appellate Tribunal") dated 31-8-1953, setting aside the award dated 13-10-1952 made by the Chairman, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta (hereinafter to be referred to as "The Tribunal") reinstating the appellant as the head cashier with back salary under the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called "The Bank").
(2.) The facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be stated. The appellant started his service as the head cashier in the Una branch of the Bank on 18-6-1949. The Cash Department of the Bank is in charge of Treasurers. The relation between the Bank and the Treasurers is evidenced by an agreement dated 1-5-1944 (Ex. 1) which will be noticed in detail hereinafter. That was an agreement between the Bank and "Messrs. Rai Bahadur Karam Chand Puri and Bros." That firm was appointed the Treasurers at the head office of the Bank and other places in and outside the Punjab. On 28-9-1951 the District Manager of the Northern Circle of the Bank wrote a letter (Ex. 4) to the Treasurers informing them that it had been decided to close the Una office of the Bank with effect from the close of business on 3-11-1951. In pursuance of that letter the Treasurers intimated by a letter dated 2-10-1951 enclosing a copy of Ex. 4 to the appellant that the Una Branch of the Bank will cease to function from the close of business on 3-11-1951 and that his services will not be required after that date. The Punjab National Bank Employees' Union (Punjab) took up the cause of the appellant as also that of other employees and made representations to the Government of India. The Government of India by a notification No. SRO-432 dated 8-3-1952 published in the Gazette of India, Part II - S. 3, in exercise of its powers under S. 10, Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) referred the industrial dispute between the Bank and its workmen named in Sch. 2 (concerning workers dismissed) and Sch. 3 (relating is workers transferred) for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta constituted under S. 7 of the Act. Schedule 1 in so far as it is necessary for purposes of this case contains the following points of dispute between the employer and the workmen : "1. Wrongful dismissal of the workmen mentioned in Sch. II and their reinstatement. 2. In the event of any order for reinstatement payment of wages and other allowances from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement". The appellant is No. 5 in Sch. 2 aforesaid. The Tribunal gave its award on 13-10-1952 in respect of a number of employees whose cases were actually in controversy before it. It is only necessary to refer to the award in so far as it concerned the appellant. After overruling the preliminary objection of the Bank that the Union had no 'locus standi' to represent the appellant. The Tribunal formulated the following point for its decision: "On merits the main point involved is as to whether the services of an employee of the Cash Department can be terminated on a change made in the services of the Contractor Cashier." It answered this point in these words : "This point has been agitated in more than one case and I have also held in Reference No. 3 of 1951 as Chairman of Industrial Tribunal (P. N. Bank dispute) relating to 5 cashiers that the employees of the Cash Department are the employees of the Bank and not the nominees of the Contractor Cashiers so far service conditions are concerned, and I think it will serve no useful purpose to discuss all the legal precedents cited, more especially when the point has been set at rest by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in - 'United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Secretary, U. P. Bank Employees' Union', AIR 1953 SC 437 (A). I am of the opinion that the dismissal of Shri Sharma was wrongful and liable to be set aside. Now the normal remedy is reinstatement and I have no hesitation in allowing the same. He will also be paid his back salary and allowance from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement."
(3.) Whatever may be the merits of the answer given to the question propounded by the Tribunal, there is no doubt that the question posed had been wrongly framed. The discharge or dismissal of the appellant had nothing to do with the change in the personnel of the Treasurers. The appellant's services were dispensed with on the ground that the Una Branch where he was employed as head cashier being an uneconomic unit had to be closed and that therefore the appellant's services were no more required. The respondent's case appears to have been that the firm known as Messrs. R. B. Karam Chand Puri and Bros, have been contractors for the Cash Department of the Bank at the head office and some of the other offices in the Punjab and beyond; that from time to time agreements were executed between the Bank and the aforesaid firm: that the last agreement was executed on 1-5-1954 (Ex. 1); that the appellant according to the respondent-Bank was the nominee of the said firm, and that his services had been dispensed with by the said firm whose employee he was and not by the Bank which had nothing directly to do with the employment of cashiers and other workers in the Cash Department which was in charge of the Treasurers described as "Contractor Treasurers". Hence the main question in controversy between the parties was whether the appellant was an employee of the Bank or of the said "Contractor Treasurers", whom we shall call the "Treasurers" for the sake of the brevity. The Tribunal did not address itself to the determination of that question. This Court also did not discuss and decide the matter in AIR 1953 SC 437 (A), but assumed that cashiers of the Bank were its employees. If that question had been decided by this Court, as the Tribunal erroneously thought this Court had, in AIR 1953 SC 437 (A), the controversy would have been at an end. Therefore when the respondent preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the Bank at the forefront of its attack against the award of the Tribunal raised the ground that the Tribunal had not determined the basic question which could have given jurisdiction to the Tribunal to decide the dispute whether the head cashier was an employee of the Bank or was a nominee of the "Treasurer" as contended on behalf of the Bank. The Bank relied very strongly before the Appellate Tribunal on the memorandum of agreement (Ex. 1) and the correspondence that passed between thee Bank and the "Treasurers" on the one hand and the latter and the appellant before us on the other (Exs. 2, 3, 4 and 5);