SRI GANGANAGAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusPRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ORS.

          SRI GANGANAGAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.                               A
 ~.
                                             v.
                       PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AND ORS.

                                       MAY 2, 1997

                    [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]                             B

              Labour Law:

              Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 :

            S.28-A-Sri Ganganagar Urban Cooperative Bank~Tennination of ser-        c
      vices of workme~Application before Industrial Tribunal for reinstate-
      ment-Reinstatement orders by Tribunal-Held, the action of the Bank
      dispensing with the services of the workmen without notice or without paying
      one month's wages in lieu thereof is clearly illegal-Rule 20 of the Urban
      Cooperative Bank Employees Service Rules and s.28-A of the Act run in D
      opposite stream~The direction of reinstatement is co"ect--However, no
      back-wages need be paid-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S.11-D; Urban
      Cooperative Bank Employees Service Rules (Rajasthan)-R.20.

              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3616 of
      1997.                                                                         E

           From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.95 of the Rajasthan High
      Court in S.A. No. 863 of 1995.

              Sushi! K. Jain for the Appellant.
                                                                                    F
              P.P. Juneja for the Respondents.

              The following Order of the Court was delivered :

              Leave granted.
                                                                                    G
            This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
-->   Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, made on November 27,
      1995 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 863/95.

           The admitted position is that the workmen, ten in number, were
      appointed in 1992. As a sample case services of Mr. Ashok Kumar, respon- H
                                          43
    44                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A dent No. 2 in this case who was appointed on August 7, 1990, were
    dispensed with on June 5, 1992. They filed an application under Section
                                                                                      ...
    33(c-2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, the 'ID Act') before the
    Industrial Tribunal for direction of reinstatement with full back wages. No
    such power under Section 33(c-2) is available but the Tribunal has the
B   power under Section 11-A of the ID Act to give such a direction as a
    consequence of the findings. Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and
    Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act') under Chapter
    VI-A deals with dismissal, discharge and termination of the service which
    reads as under :

c           "28-A Notice of dismissal or discharge by employer - (1) No
            employer shall dismiss or discharge from his employment any
            employee who has been in such employment continuously for a
            period of not less than six months except for a reasonable cause
            and after giving such employee -at least one month's prior notice
            or on paying him one month's wages in lieu of such notice :
D
                Provided that such notice shall not be .necessary where the
            services of such employee are dispensed with for such misconduct,
            as may be defined in the rules made by the State Government in
            this behalf, and supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an
E           enquiry held for the purpose in the prescribed manner."

         · The finding given by the Industrial Tribunal is that it is a commercial
    establishment. Rule 20(d) of Urban Cooperative Bank Employees Service
    Rules, (for short, the 'Rules') made under the Rajasthan Cooperative
    Societies Act, 1965 provides thus :
F
             "Rule 20(d) : Service of an employee whose appointment has been
             made or extended upto a specified period or date only shall
             automatically terminate on the expiry of that period or date and
             no notice for termination of services of such employee will be
             necessary."
G
        A conjoint reading of the above provisions does indicate that Section        . "-·
  28-A of the Act and Rule 20 of the Rules mutually run in opposite streams.
  Section 28-A envisages that no employer shall dismi~s or discharge an
  employee from _his employment who has been in such employment con-
                  a
H tinuously for period of not less than six months except for a reasonable
             G.URBAN CO-OPER. BANK v. PRESCRIBED AU'IHORITY                   45

    cause and that too after giving such employee at least one month's prior       A
    notice or on paying him month's wages in lieu of such notice. The proviso
    postulates that the employer also shall have the power to dispense with the
    services of the employee for misconduct and such misconduct shall be
    enquired into in accordance with the Rules made in that behalf and
    supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the         B
    purpose in the prescribed manner.

           Thus, two courses are open to the employer to put an end to the
    services of an employee - workman. One is to dispense with the services

-   by issuance of one month's prior notice or on paying one month's wages
    in lieu of such notice. What is more, the services can be dispensed with for. C
    a reasonable cause. The other option is that the services of an employee
    can be dispensed with on proor'of misconduct after due enquiry envisages
    adduction of evidence and recording of a finding based thereon, enquiry
    in the prescribed manner is conducted and the decision is taken in that
    behalf. In this case, no such course was adopted. Though Rule 20 of the
    Rules postulates automatic termination of services of an employee after D
    expiry of the specified period, the Act interposes and curtails that power
    of the employer to terminate the service of the employee except in the
    manner indicated in Section 28-A. Admittedly, no such action has been
    taken by the appellant. Consequently, the action of the appellant dispens-
    ing with the service without notice or without paying one month's wages in E
    lieu thereof is clearly illegal. The direction of reinstatement is correct;
    however, no back wages need to be paid.                                            f   ...


                                                                                            '
           The appeal is accordingly disposed of, No costs

    R.P.                                                     Appeal disposed of.