A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of The Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1959) revolved around the legality of the dismissal of 150 bank employees amidst an industrial dispute. The core issues involved the interpretation and application of Sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the legality of a “pen-down” strike. The Bank had dismissed the employees on grounds of participating in an illegal strike without prior permission from the Tribunal as mandated under Section 33. The Industrial Tribunal and Labour Appellate Tribunal had divergent views on the legality of such dismissals and the rights of the dismissed employees. The Supreme Court, while upholding that the strike was indeed illegal under Section 23(b), ruled that the Bank also violated Section 33 by not obtaining prior permission for dismissal during the pendency of industrial proceedings. This made the dismissal illegal, though not void ab initio. The Court clarified the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Sections 10 and 33A, affirmed the right to adjudicate both the contravention and merits, and upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s order reinstating 136 employees while denying reinstatement to 14 for subversive conduct. This landmark judgment significantly shaped the interpretation of employer obligations and employee rights during industrial adjudication.

Keywords: Industrial Disputes Act, Section 33, Pen-down Strike, Reinstatement, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Employee Dismissal, Subversive Acts

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
The Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Its Workmen

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeals Nos. 519–521 of 1958

iii) Judgement Date:
September 24, 1959

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, and K. Subba Rao, JJ.

vi) Author:
Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar

vii) Citation:
1960(1) SCR 806

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Sections 2(q), 10, 23, 24, 33, and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None specifically overruled.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Labour Law, Constitutional Law, Industrial Relations

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute emerged during the pendency of arbitration under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, between the Punjab National Bank and its employees. The Bank dismissed 150 employees citing their participation in an unlawful strike, namely a pen-down strike, which disrupted bank operations nationwide. The Government intervened and an agreement led to the reinstatement of some workers, while the remaining 150 were referred to adjudication. The main contention involved whether dismissals during the pendency of industrial proceedings, without prior permission under Section 33, were lawful. The case also addressed whether participation in an illegal strike automatically warranted dismissal and the extent of the Tribunal’s power under Section 33A to adjudicate not just the violation but also the merits of dismissal.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On April 17, 1951, the Bank suspended a typist, Sabharwal, who also held a union office, leading to a pen-down strike starting from Delhi. The strike spread nationally. The Bank issued return-to-work ultimatums, and upon non-compliance, deemed the employees to have voluntarily ceased service. An agreement with the Government permitted reinstatement of employees, barring 150 individuals. The Union alleged victimisation of key trade unionists, while the Bank justified dismissals based on participation in an illegal strike and subversive acts. The Industrial Tribunal initially upheld the Bank’s stance but was overturned in part by the Appellate Tribunal. After further hearings, 136 were reinstated, and 14 denied reinstatement due to proven subversive conduct.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the dismissal of employees without obtaining permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was valid.

ii. Whether the participation in an illegal “pen-down” strike was by itself sufficient to justify dismissal.

iii. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate both the contravention of Section 33 and the merits of the dismissals under Section 33A.

iv. Whether reinstatement could be ordered for employees who participated in an illegal strike and allegedly engaged in subversive activities.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsel for the Bank contended that participation in the illegal strike constituted misconduct justifying dismissal.

ii. They argued that Section 23(b) read with Section 24(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act rendered the strike illegal, empowering the Bank to dismiss participants.

iii. The Bank maintained that no charges were required as the strike’s illegality and its impact were self-evident.

iv. They asserted the entire group was culpable due to collective responsibility for printing and distributing subversive material.

v. The Bank contended that since it had employed new hands, reinstatement was practically infeasible and unjust.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The employees’ counsel submitted that dismissal without prior permission under Section 33 was a contravention of the Act, rendering it illegal.

ii. They argued no enquiry was held and no charges were framed, breaching principles of natural justice.

iii. They emphasized that not all employees participated in subversive activities and should not be collectively punished.

iv. They contended that the Bank had waived its right to penalize employees by agreeing with the Government to refer only 150 cases.

v. The employees asserted the Tribunal under Section 33A had full jurisdiction to decide the merits of dismissal and direct reinstatement accordingly.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 33, Industrial Disputes Act – prohibits dismissal during pending proceedings without Tribunal’s permission.

ii. Section 33A, Industrial Disputes Act – allows workers to file direct complaints for violation of Section 33.

iii. Section 23(b) and 24(1), Industrial Disputes Act – define and penalize illegal strikes during arbitration.

iv. Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act – empowers Government to refer disputes to adjudication.

v. Section 2(q), Industrial Disputes Act – defines “strike”.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court held that although the strike was illegal under Section 23(b), the Bank’s dismissal of employees without obtaining prior permission contravened Section 33.

ii. The Court ruled that such dismissals, though illegal, were not ipso facto void. They remained open for adjudication on merits by the Tribunal under Section 33A or Section 10.

iii. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider both the violation of Section 33 and the justifiability of the dismissals on facts.

iv. The reinstatement of 136 employees was confirmed as no direct misconduct could be proven against them. The denial of reinstatement to 14 was also upheld due to their proven participation in subversive acts (posters and circulars that undermined the Bank’s credibility).

b. OBITER DICTA 

i. The Court warned against doctrinaire and legalistic application of civil service principles in labour disputes, emphasizing the unique socio-economic balancing in industrial adjudication.

ii. It clarified that a pen-down strike, though potentially a civil trespass, does not automatically disqualify workers from reinstatement.

c. GUIDELINES 

• A proper enquiry must precede dismissal in cases of alleged misconduct, including illegal strikes.

• Violation of Section 33 does not automatically void the dismissal but requires adjudication on merits.

• Under Section 33A, the Tribunal must consider both the contravention and the justifiability of the action.

• Blanket dismissals without individualized evaluation of culpability are not tenable.

• Subversive conduct must be specifically proven for denial of reinstatement.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This decision delineates critical boundaries in employer-employee relationships during pending industrial proceedings. The judgment harmonized statutory mandates with principles of fairness, emphasizing due process over administrative expediency. It provided clarity on the limited effect of Section 33 contraventions, emphasizing adjudicative scrutiny under Section 33A. The ruling also reaffirmed the distinction between illegal and unjustified dismissal and elevated individualized justice over collective punishment in industrial disputes. The decision has had enduring jurisprudential value in industrial law and continues to be cited in employment litigation and Tribunal interpretations across India.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. The Automobile Products of India Ltd. v. Rukmaji Bala, [1955] 1 SCR 1241
ii. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1958] SCR 667
iii. Equitable Coal Co. Ltd. v. Algu Singh
iv. McKenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1959] SCR (Supp.) 222
v. Burn & Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen
vi. Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, [1949] FCR 321
vii. Buckingham & Carnatic Mills Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1955) II LLJ 314

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
ii. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 441 – Criminal Trespass 
iii. Constitution of India, Article 311(2)