Appeal No126 of 1963
Appeal by special leave from the order dated April 3 1962 of the Central Government Labour Court at Delhi in OP No 15 of 1961
CK Daphtary Attorney General HN Sanyal Solicitor General SV Gupte Additional Solicitor General KB Mehta HL Anand and Vidhya Sagar the appellant
Anand Prakash and SN Bhandari for the respondent
December 2 1963
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs GUPTA J
The respondent Nanak Chand 622 Jain was a money tester in the cash department of the Agra Branch of the Imperial Bank of India
On December 20 1952 it was detected that a packet containing 10 pieces of 100 rupee notes shroffed by another employee of the Bank and handed over by him to the respondent were missing
In connection with this the respondent and four other employees of the Bank were prosecuted the trial in the Sessions Court ending with their acquittal the respondent having been given the benefit of doubt
Thereafter on December 10 1954 the Bank served on the respondent a charge sheet alleging carelessness and dereliction of duty
An enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer found the  charge against the respondent established
On a consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer the Bank decided to terminate his services with effect from May 16 1955 by paying him three months pay and allowances
The respondent was given further hearing as regards the nature of the proposed punishment and thereafter his services were terminated as from the close of business on May 16 1955
The validity of the enquiry proceedings was challenged by the respondent on the ground that he had not been given adequate facility for being represented by a Union official of his choice and ultimately after a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal that the employee had an unqualified option in regard to the selection of persons who would represent him at the departmental enquiry a fresh enquiry was held after withdrawing the order of termination of his services
This fresh enquiry
was held on the 21st and 22nd of November 1956 On this occasion also the enquiry officer found the charges against the respondent proved
After consideration of the report and after giving the respondent an opportunity to show cause why the reposed punishment of termination of his services on payment of three months  salary in lieu of notice should not be imposed on him the Bank decided in November 1960 to terminate his
services by giving him three months  salary in lieu of notice in terms of Para 521 2 c of the Sastry Award
623 As an industrial dispute between the Bank and its employees was pending before the National Industrial Tribunal at this time the Bank made an application on November 21 1960 to that Tribunal under section 332 of the for approval of its action in terminating the services of the respondent
Before making this application the Bank had informed the respondent by its letter dated November 4 1960 of its decision to terminate his services and tendered a payment order for Rs 45071 being his pay and allowances for three months
The National Industrial Tribunal transferred this application to the Central Government Labour Court at Delhi for disposal
Resisting this application the respondent contended inter alia that he had not been paid wages for one month as required under the proviso to section 332 and so the application should be dismissed
An application under section 33A of the was also filed by the respondent before the Central Government Labour Court at Delhi complaining that the Bank had contravened the provisions of section 33 by not paying him the one month s pay as required under the proviso
This application was resisted by the Bank which contended that the application was not maintainable and the action taken by it was legal and justified
It was urged by the Bank that there had not been any contravention o section 332 as alleged by the employee as three months  pay and allowances had been paid
The Labour Court held that payment of three months  salary in terms of Para 521 2 c of the Sastry Award did not amount to compliance with the requirement of payment of one month s wages under the proviso to section 33 2
It held accordingly that the application under section 33A was maintainable and fixed the application for further hearing on other issues on a later date
When the application under section 33 2 b of the that had been filed by the Bank came up for hearing before the Court the Presiding Officer Mr Vyas held himself bound by 624 the decision of his predecessor Mr Krishnamurty in the application under section 33A that there had been contravention of this requirement of payment of one month s pay under the proviso
Accordingly he rejected the Bank s application for approval to terminate the services of the respondent
It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by the Bank by special leave
The only question for our consideration is when payment of three months  salary has been made in terms of Para 521 2 c of the Sastry Award is it correct to say that the requirement of payment of one month s salary under the proviso to section 332 has not been complied with On behalf of the Bank it is urged that it is unreasonable to think that three months  salary already paid did not include the wages for one month required under the proviso
On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contends that the payment of three months  pay and allowances as provided in para 521 2 c of the Sastry Award has a different purpose from that of payment of one month s wages in the proviso to section 33 2
In support of this argument he has drawn our attention to the words of the provision as regards this payment in para 521 2 c
These words are shall be liable only for termination of service with three months  pay and allowances in lieu of notice 
 According to the learned counsel the use of the words in lieu of notice in this provision marks the difference in character of the payment provided for in the proviso to section 332 and it is clearly not in lieu of notice
It appears to us that the words in lieu of notice in para 5212 c have not the significance which the learned counsel attributes to them
We do not think that the Sastry Award intended that the services of such an employee could be terminated by giving him three months  notice without paying him three months  pay and allowances
Though the words in lieu of notice have been used it is clear that three months  pay and allowances have to be paid in every 625 such case of termination of service
The object in making this provision appears therefore to be the same as in the proviso viz to give the employee some monetary assistance
It is difficult to see why therefore three months  pay and allowances paid under para 521 2 c should not be held to include pay for a lesser period as provided under the proviso to section 332
In our opinion the payment for a longer period should be held to include payment for the shorter period and where three months  pay and allowances had been paid under the provisions of para 521 2 c no further payment of one month s wages under the proviso to section 33 2 is required
We have therefore come to the conclusion that the Labour Court erred in dismissing the Bank s application under section 33 2 on the ground that the requirement or payment of one month s wages had not been complied with
Accordingly we allow the appeal set aside the order of the Labour Court and direct that the application under section 33 2 b be disposed of on merits
There will be no order as to costs
Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent who was an employee of the appellant Bank was acquitted of the charge of misappropriation of the latter s money
But on an enquiry by the appellant the respondent was found guilty of carelessness and it was decided that his service should be terminated
In accordance with this decision he was informed of the termination of his services and the appellant tendered three months  pay and allowances in lieu of notice
Since industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and its employees the former made an application to the Tribunal under section 332 of the for approval of its action
The Tribunal held that the payment of three months pay in lieu of notice in terms of para 5212c of the Sastry Award did not amount to compliance with the requirement of payment of one month s wages under the proviso to section 332 of the Act The Bank filed the present appeal on special leave granted by this Court
Held The payment for a longer period should be held to include payment for the shorter period and where three months pay and allowances had been paid under the provisions of para 5212c of the Sastry Award no further payment of one months wages under the proviso to section 332 is required