Case: S. S. Shetty Vs. Bharat Nidhi, Ltd

to take into account the terms and conditions of employment, the tenure of service, the possibility of termination of the employment at the instance of either party, the possibility of retrenchment by the employer or resignation or retirement by the workman and even of the employer himself ceasing to exist or of the workman being awarded various benefits including reinstatement under the terms of future award by Industrial Tribunals in the event of industrial disputes arising between the parties in the future.19. Even in the case of ordinary contracts between master and servant such considerations have been imported by the Courts. The observations of Greer, L. J. inSalt v. Power Plant Co., Ltd.,1936-3 ALL E R 322 at p. 325 (B), are apposite in this context."This is the case of a man who had, according to my view, got an engagement which was to last for life, or at any rate for the joint lives of himself and the company, but I think for his life, because I think there are authorities to the effect that if a company winds up, that is dismissal of the servants, and they can they prove for damages and get their dividend, whatever it may happen to be. Fortunately, the company has not been wound up, but in estimating the damages, of course the tribunal estimating them will have to take into consideration the fact that at any time after June 26, 1935, it might have appeared to the directors that they had good reasons for terminating the plaintiffs services, reasons connected with his conduct. The present value of what his salary would be for the rest of his life must also be considered, and there must also be taken into account the fact that he is a man who might at any time terminate his service by his life coming to an end, and other matters with which I need not deal."20. These and similar considerations would equally be germane in the matter of the computation in terms of money of the value of the benefit of reinstatement which was awarded to the appellant in the case before us.21. Turning therefore to the terms and conditions of employment we find that the respondent had enacted Bye-laws for the employees of Bharat Bank Ltd., which were applicable to the appellant. Bye-law 9 provides that tan employee may resign from the service of the respondent by giving one months notice.Bye-law 11 provides that the respondent shall have the option to terminate an employees service on giving him the same notice as he is required to give to the respondent under rule No. 9 (which can be served even when the employee may be on leave), or by paying him salary for the notice period in lieu of notice, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, provided that no notice shall be necessary when he is dismissed on account of misconduct, dishonestly, gross-negligence insubordination or disregard of any of the standing instructions.Bye-law 13 lays down that every employee is required to retire on attaining the age of 55 years. He may be retained in service after that age only with the express sanction of the authorities but such extension of service will not exceed more than 2 years at a time.22. If regard be had to these terms and conditions, it was possible for the respondent to terminate the service of the appellant by paying him one months salary in lieu of notice. If there was nothing more, the appellant would have been entitled only to that amount as and by way of compensation for non-implementation of the direction for reinstatement. There was however a finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal which made the award dated December 5, 1950 that the respondent had been guilty of unfair labour practice and victimization and the ordinary right, which the respondent would have been in a position to exercise, of terminating the service of the appellant on giving him one months salary in lieu of notice could not be availed of by the respondent. On an industrial dispute raised by the appellant on the respondents terminating his service at any time in the future, it would be open to the Industrial Tribunal to go into the question whether the termination of the appellants service by the respondent was justified and if the Industrial Tribunal came to an adverse conclusion, it would be open to it to reinstate the appellant in the service of the respondent with all back salary, allowances, etc. Even if the respondent wanted to retrench the appellant, the same considerations would arise with a possible result against the respondent. On the other hand, there was also a possibility of the respondent being in the right and being entitled to lawfully terminate the service of the appellant in which event of course the appellant would be without any redress whatever. In computing the money value of the benefit of reinstatement the Industrial Tribunal would also have to take into account the present value of what his salary, benefits, etc., would be till he attained the age of superannuation and the value of such benefits would have to be computed as from the date when such reinstatement was ordered under the terms of the award.23. Having regard to the considerations detailed above it is impossible to compute the money value of this benefit of reinstatement awarded to the appellant with mathematical exactitude and the best that any Tribunal or Court would do under the circumstances would be to make as correct an estimate as is possible bearing of course in mind all relevant factors pro and con. We have ourselves devoted very anxious thought to this aspect of the matter and we have come to the conclusion that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it would be reasonable to compute the benefit of reinstatement which was awarded to the appellant at an amount of Rs. 12,500 (Rupees twelve thousand and five hundred only).

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We are of opinion that these circumstances cannot be availed of by the respondent. It is no doubt true that the respondent transferred its liabilities and equivalent assets to the Punjab National Bank Ltd., some time in March 1951, The correspondence which was carried on between the appellant and the respondent however shows that in spite of such transfer to the Punjab National Bank Ltd., and the change of the name of the respondent from the Bharat Bank Ltd., to Bharat Nidhi Ltd., the respondent never contended that Bharat Nidhi Ltd., was not in a position to reinstate the appellant in its service.Having regard to the considerations detailed above it is impossible to compute the money value of this benefit of reinstatement awarded to the appellant with mathematical exactitude and the best that any Tribunal or Court would do under the circumstances would be to make as correct an estimate as is possible bearing of course in mind all relevant factors pro andhave ourselves devoted very anxious thought to this aspect of the matter and we have come to the conclusion that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it would be reasonable to compute the benefit of reinstatement which was awarded to the appellant at an amount of Rs. 12,500 (Rupees twelve thousand and five hundred only).