Case: Central Bank of India Limited Vs. K.R. Meenakshisundaram

his service in the Bank. Consequently, the appellant cannot now take up the plea that the respondents services with the appellant, if terminated by it, had been so terminated from the 2nd of September, 1952. It was further argued that the correspondence clearly showed that the respondent had not abandoned his services or resigned his employment with the appellant; therefore, the action of the appellant amounted to refusal to give work to the respondent who was still its employee. The refusal to give work was a continuous process. It amounted to alteration of the conditions of service of the appellant. The termination of the respondents services had not taken place in any event before the 21st of; April, 1953. Therefore, the provisions of Ss. 22 and 23 applied to the facts of the present case and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the petition.7. Section 22 states;"During the period of thirty days allowed for the filing of an appeal under section 10 or during the pendency of any appeal under this Act, no employer shall-(a) alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such appeal, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the filing of such appeal, or(b) discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workmen concerned in such appeal,save with the express permission in writing of the Appellate Tribunal."8. Section 23 states:"Where an employer contravenes the provisions of section 22 during the pendency of proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal, any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may make a complaint in writing, in the prescribed manner to such Appellate Tribunal and on receipt of such complaint, the Appellate Tribunal shall decide the complaint as if it were an appeal pending beore it, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall pronounce its decision thereon and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly."It is clear from these provisions that S. 23 can only come into play if the provisions of S. 22 had been contravened.The Sastry Award was given on the 21th of April, 1953 and the appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal had been filed on the 16th of May, 1953. The services of the respondent were regarded by the appellant as having ended from the 2nd of September, 1952. If the services of the respondent had been terminated by the appellant they had been terminated before the Sastry Award was made.On the other hand, if the respondent abandoned his service or resigned his post, the termination of his service was not by the appellant in which case the provisions of S. 22 did not apply.Assuming, however, without deciding, that the appellant terminated his services, that termination was not during the 30 days allowed for filing of an appeal under S. 10 or during the pendency of an appeal. It is true that an industrial dispute was pending before the Sastry Tribunal at the time the respondents services ended. The remedy of the respondent then was really under S. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Sastry Tribunal had, however, made its award on the 21th of April, 1953 and thereafter it was functus officio and no such application had been filed under S. 33-A before it gave its award. As the respondents services had not ended during the period stated in S. 22, it is clear that the provisions of that section did not apply. Since the provisions of S. 22 did not apply the petition filed by the respondent under S. 23 was misconceived and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain it. We wish to make it quite clear that we do not decide that the services of the respondent had been terminated by the appellant. What we do decide is that from the 2nd of September, 1952 the respondent was no longer in the service of the appellant and that even if it were to be assumed that the termination was by the appellant it was not during the period specified in S. 22.9. In our opinion the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants action amounted to refusal to give work to the respondent and as that refusal continued during the relevant period under S. 22 it had jurisdiction to entertain and consider the petition under S. 23.In our opinion, no such conclusion could be drawn from the correspondence between the appellant and the respondent referred to above. That correspondence clearly showed that if the respondent did not join his duties at Mangalore by the lst of September, 1952, the appellant would not consider the respondent as any longer in its service. The notice given was clear and as the respondent did not resume his duties at Mangalore by the lst of September, 1952, it could be inferred by the appellant that the respondent voluntarily left its service. On the other hand, it may be possible to infer from the contents of the letter of the 26th of August, 1952, by which the respondent was given time until the lst of September, 1952 to join his duties at Mangalore otherwise he would be treated as no longer in its service, that his services were terminated by the appellant if the respondent failed to comply with the directions given therein. Whatever inference may be drawn from that letter, it is quite clear that the respondent was no longer in the service of the appellant from 2nd September, 1952. In any event, the letter of the appellant dated the 23rd of December, 1952 to the Conciliation Officer in reply to his letter of the 9th of December, 1952 clearly showed that the respondent was no longer in the service of the appellant.It would be, therefore, altogether wrong to suppose that this was a case where an employer had continuously refused to give work to his employee.10. It is unnecessary for us to give any decision on the merits of the case as our decision is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under S. 23

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

Explanation:
1[ds]9. In our opinion the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants action amounted to refusal to give work to the respondent and as that refusal continued during the relevant period under S. 22 it had jurisdiction to entertain and consider the petition under S. 23.In our opinion, no such conclusion could be drawn from the correspondence between the appellant and the respondent referred to above. That correspondence clearly showed that if the respondent did not join his duties at Mangalore by the lst of September, 1952, the appellant would not consider the respondent as any longer in its service. The notice given was clear and as the respondent did not resume his duties at Mangalore by the lst of September, 1952, it could be inferred by the appellant that the respondent voluntarily left its service. On the other hand, it may be possible to infer from the contents of the letter of the 26th of August, 1952, by which the respondent was given time until the lst of September, 1952 to join his duties at Mangalore otherwise he would be treated as no longer in its service, that his services were terminated by the appellant if the respondent failed to comply with the directions given therein. Whatever inference may be drawn from that letter, it is quite clear that the respondent was no longer in the service of the appellant from 2nd September, 1952. In any event, the letter of the appellant dated the 23rd of December, 1952 to the Conciliation Officer in reply to his letter of the 9th of December, 1952 clearly showed that the respondent was no longer in the service of the appellant.It would be, therefore, altogether wrong to suppose that this was a case where an employer had continuously refused to give work to his employee.10. It is unnecessary for us to give any decision on the merits of the case as our decision is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under S. 23