{"id":46481,"date":"1976-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-01-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976"},"modified":"2017-06-06T04:10:54","modified_gmt":"2017-06-05T22:40:54","slug":"state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976","title":{"rendered":"State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1111, \t\t 1976 SCR (3) 160<\/div>\n
Author: V Krishnaiyer<\/div>\n
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE BANK OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI N. SUNDARA MONEY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/01\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nGUPTA, A.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1111\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 160\n 1976 SCC  (1) 822\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1977 SC  31\t (2,4)\n R\t    1979 SC 170\t (17)\n F\t    1980 SC1219\t (11,12,13)\n RF\t    1981 SC 422\t (5)\n RF\t    1981 SC1253\t (7,8)\n R\t    1982 SC 854\t (5,6)\n D\t    1983 SC 865\t (6)\n E\t    1983 SC1320\t (7,8,9,11,12)\n R\t    1984 SC 500\t (2)\n R\t    1984 SC 684\t (50)\n RF\t    1986 SC 132\t (7)\n RF\t    1986 SC1680\t (4)\n E&D\t    1990 SC1808\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of India-Art. 133(1)-Scheme of -Conditions\nprecedent for  the issue  of a certificate under in exercise\nof power  under Art.  136 of  the  Constitution\t on  such  a\ncertificate.\n     Industrial Disputes  Act. 1947 (Act 14 of 1947)-Section\n25F read  with ss.  2(oo) and 25(B) (2)-Scope of the concept\nof retrenchment under s.2(oo).\n     Statutory construction  of social\twelfare legislation-\nGuidelines.\n     Words    and     phrases-Meaning\t of\tthe    words\n\"termination.....for   any   reason   whatsoever\"   includes\nautomatic  extinguishment   of\tservice\t  by  virtue   of  a\npreemptive provision  to terminate  in the appointment order\nitself.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Section 25(F)(b)  of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,\nprovides that  no workman  employed in\tany industry who has\nbeen in\t continuous service for not less than one year under\nan employer  shall be  retrenched by  that employer until he\nhas been  paid at the time of the retrenchment, compensation\nwhich shall  be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every\ncompleted year\tof service or any  part thereof in excess of\nsix months  Section 2(oo)  of the Act defines 'retrenchment'\nas meaning the termination by the employer of the service of\na workman  for any  reasons whatsoever,\t otherwise than as a\npunishment inflicted  by way  of disciplinary action. In the\n\"Hospital Mazdoor  Sabha's\" the\t Supreme Court held that the\nstatutory requirement  of the  payment of compensation under\ns. 25(F)(b)  of the  Industrial\t Disputes  Act,\t 1947  is  a\ncondition precedent  for the  retrenchment of  a workman and\nany  retrenchment   without  payment  at  the  time  of\t the\nretrenchment  makes   the  retrenchment\t order\tinvalid\t and\ninoperative\n     As\t the   automatic  extinguishment   of  his   service\nconsequent to  the preemptive  provision in  his appointment\norder  as  to  the  temporariness  and\tthe  period  of\t his\nemployment was\tcovered by  the words \"termination . for any\nreasons whatsoever\"  occurring in s. 2(oo) of the Act, in an\napplication under  Art.\t 226  of  the  Constitution  by\t the\nrespondent claiming  that by virtue of his deemed continuous\nservice of  one year  within the meaning of s. 25B(2) of the\nIndustrial Disputes  Act, he  was entitled  to be reinstated\nfor non-compliance  of s.  25F of the Act. The High Court of\nMadras allowing the writ made the rule nisi\n absolute. The writ appeal filed by the appellant respondent\nalso failed.  However, the  High Court granted a certificate\nunder Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.\n     Dismissing the  appeals and  negativing the contentions\nof the appellant, the Court.\n^\n     HELD: (1) The grant of a Constitutional passport to the\nSupreme Court\tby  the High  Court is\tnot a matter of easy\ninsouciance  but   anxious  advertence\tto  the\t dual  vital\nrequirements built into Art. 133(1) by specific amendment. A\nsubstantial question  of law of general importance is a sine\nquo non\t to certify  fitness for  hearing by the apex court.\nNay, more; the question, however, important and substantial,\nmust be\t of such pervasive import and deep significance that\nin the\tHigh Court's  judgment it  imperatively needs  to be\nsettled at  the national level by the highest bench. Failure\nhere stultifies\t the scheme  of the  Article and floods this\ncourt with  cases  of  lesser  magnitude  with\tillegitimate\nentry.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   [162 C-E]\n     Union of  India v.\t Hafiz Mohmd.  Said, ILR  [1973]  II\nDelhi 673, 676, approved.\n     (2) While\texercising the\tvital powers  under Art. 136\nthe Supreme Court must have due regard to the constitutional\nlimitations of\tArt. 133(1)  and  owe  allegiance  to  those\nrestraints save in exceptional cases. [163 A]\n161\n     (3) If  the workman swims into the harbour of s. 25F of\nthe Industrial\tDisputes Act,  1947, he cannot be retrenched\nwithout payment,  at the  lime of retrenchment, compensation\ncomputed as prescribed therein read with s. 25B(2)\n\t\t\t\t\t\t     [164 D]\n     State of  Bombay and others v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha &\nothers<\/a> [1960] (2) S.C.R. &66. applied.\n     (4)  Statutory   construction,  when   courts  consider\nwelfare legislation  with an  economic justice\tbias, cannot\nturn on\t cold print,  glorified as grammatical construction,\nbut  on\t teleological  purpose\tand  protective\t intendment.\nSections 25F,  25B    and  2(oo), of the Industrial Disputes\nAct, 1947  have a workers' mission and\tthe input of Part IV\nof  the\t  Constitution\talso   underscores  this   benignant\napproach. while canons of traditional sanctity cannot wholly\ngovern,\t courts\t  cannot  go   hay  wire   in\tinterpreting\nprovisions, ignoring the text and context. Words of multiple\nimport have  to be  winnowed judicially\t to suit  the social\nphilosophy of the statute. Dictionaries are not dictators of\nstatutory construction\twhere the  benignant mood  of a\t law\nand, more  emphatically, the  definition  clause  furnish  a\ndifferent denotation.  Section 2(00)  is the  master of\t the\nsituation and  the Court  cannot truncate its amplitude. The\nwords \"for  any\t reason\t whatsoever\"  in  s.  2(00)  of\t the\nIndustrial Disputes Act are very wide and almost admit of no\nexception.\n\t\t\t\t[163 G, 164 H, 165 B, 166 B]\n     (5) A  breakdown of  s. 2(00)  unmistakably expands the\nsemantics of  retrenchment. \"Termination  .. for  any reason\nwhatsoever\" are\t the key  words.  Every\t termination  spells\nretrenchment. A termination takes place where a term expires\neither by  the active  step of the master or the running out\nof the\tstipulated term.  To protect  the weak\tagainst\t the\nstrong this  policy of\tcomprehensive  definition  has\tbeen\neffectuated. Termination  embraces not\tmerely\tthe  act  of\ntermination by the employer, but the fact of termination how\nsoever produced.  Retrenchment is  no longer terra incognita\nbut area  covered by  an expansive  definition. It means 'to\nend' conclude,\tcease'. That  to write\tinto  the  order  of\nappointment the\t date of  termination confers no moksha from\ns. 25F(b)  is inferable\t from the  proviso to  s. 25F(1).  A\nseparate subsequent  termination of  the service  is not the\nsole magnetic  pull of the provision. A preemptive provision\nto terminate  is  struck  by  the  same\t vice  as  a\tpost\nappointment termination.  Dexterity of diction cannot defeat\nthe articulated conscience of the provision. [165 B-C, D, E,\n166 C]\n     Observation:-Social   justice   has   two\t sides\t and\noccasionally one  party or  he other  makes myopic  mistakes\nresulting in further litigation. [166 G]\n     [The Court reiterated its views held out in Trustees of\nPort, Bombay's\tcase, namely, where the law is not free from\nobscurity and  needs this  Court's pronouncement  and one of\nthe affected parties is weak, being a worker, the costs must\ncome out  of public  funds and suggested the constitution by\nthe State  of a\t  \"Suitors  Fund\" which\t will take  care  of\nhardships and  public interest\tin  the\t area  of  necessary\nlitigation.]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeals Nos. 933
\nand 934 of 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  judgment and  orders dated  the 24th and 25th
\nMarch, 1975  of the  Madras High  Court at  Madras  in\twrit
\nappeal No. 231\tof 1973 and writ petition No. 5062 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     F. S. Nariman, M\/s. 1. N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar, for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     M. K. Ramamurthi and J. Ramamurthi, for the respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KRISHNA 1 YEAR, J.-The appellant employer, undaunted by
\na double  defeat at  both  tiers  in  the  High\t Court,\t has
\nappealed against  the ad verse judgments, by certificate, on
\nthe only  ground that  there  was  no  retrenchment  of\t the
\nrespondent-employee (within the meaning of
\n162<\/span>
\nOf s. 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of
\n1947) hereinafter  called the  Act)  and,  consequently\t the
\nlatter was ineligible to-the statutory compensation the non-
\npayment of  which, along  with the  termination of  service,
\nnullified the  termination itself.  The end  result was that
\nthe Division  Bench of\tthe Court  ruled that the respondent
\n‘was  entitled\tto  retrenchment  compensation’\t which,\t not
\nhaving been  paid, ‘the\t termination would  be invalid’. The
\nsubtle r  legal issue,\tsubstantial in its financial impact,
\nis whether  s. 25F  read with  s. 2(00),  vis a\t vis a short
\nemployment, casts a lethal spell on the cessation of service
\nfor non-compliance  with the  condition precedent set out in
\nthe provision.\n<\/p>\n
The Certificate
\n     The  certificate\tissued\tby   the  High\tCourt  under
\nArt.133(1) is  bad on its face, according to counsel for the
\nrespondent and\tthe appeal  consequently incompetent. We are
\ninclined  to  agree  that  the\tgrant  of  a  constitutional
\npassport to  the Supreme  Court by  the High  Court is not a
\nmatter of  easy insouciance  but anxious  advertence to\t the
\ndual vital  requirements built\tinto Art. 133(1) by specific
\namendment. Failure here stultifies the scheme of the Article
\nand floods  this Court\twith cases  of lesser magnitude with
\nillegitimate entry. A substantial question of law of general
\nimportance is  a sine qua non to certify fitness for hearing
\nby the\tapex court.  Nay,  .  more;  the  question,  however
\nimportant and  substantial, must be of such pervasive import
\nand deep  significance that  in the High Court’s judgment it
\nimperatively needs  to be  settled at  the national level by
\nthe highest bench. The crux of the matter has been correctly
\nset out\t in a  decision(l) of  the Delhi High Court in words
\nwhich find our approval:\n<\/p>\n
     “A certificate can be granted only if the case involves
\n     a question of law:- .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i)  which is\t not only substantial but is also of
\n\t       general importance; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) the said\t question, in  our opinion, needs to
\n\t       be decided by the Supreme Court. r _
\n     It has  to be  noted that\tall the\t above\trequirements
\n     should  be\t  satisfied  before  a\tcertificate  can  be
\n     granted. It means that it is not sufficient if the case
\n     involves a\t substantial  question\tof  law\t of  general
\n     importance but  in addition to it the High Court should
\n     be of  the opinion\t that  such  question  needs  to  be
\n     decided by the Supreme Court. Further, the word ‘needs’
\n     suggests that  there has  to be  a necessity  for\ta  ”
\n     decision by the Supreme Court on the question, and such
\n     a necessity  can be  said to  exist when, for instance,
\n     two views\tare possible  regarding the question and the
\n     High  Court  takes\t one  of  the  said  views.  Such  a
\n     necessity can  also said to exist when a different view
\n     has been expressed by another High Court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1) Union\tof India  v. Hafiz Mohd. Said<\/a>: ILR [1973] II
\nDelhi 673, 676.\n<\/p>\n
163<\/span><\/p>\n
     It is  but fair  to add  an implied  but important foot
\nnote that   while  exercising the wider power under Art. 136
\nthis Court  must  have\tdue  regard  to\t the  constitutional
\nlimitations on\tArt. 133(1)  and  owe  allegiance  to  those
\nrestraints save in exceptional cases.\n<\/p>\n
     This view o f the certificate would have put the lid on
\nthis appeal but on hearing counsel we feel that the omission
\nof the\tHigh Court  to assess  the case explicitly from this
\nangle does not disable us from B. granting special leave, if
\napplied for.  So much  so counsel have proceeded to argue on
\nthe merits,  the penumbral area of industrial law covered by
\nthe subject  matter being  one which cannot be left in legal
\ntwilight.\n<\/p>\n
The facts
\n     One of  the two employees involved in these appeals has
\nbeen re-absorbed  in service  and his  case is\ttherefore of
\nlesser import,\tbut the\t other is  still out in the cold and
\nhis legal  fate falls for examination in the matrix of facts
\nwhich we  proceed to state. This respondent was appointed as
\ncashier, off and on, by the state Bank of India between July
\n31, 1973  and  August  29,  1973.  The\tintermittent  breaks
\nnotwithstanding, his  total number  of\tdays  of  employment
\nanswered the  test of  ‘deemed’ continuous service within s.
\n258(2) and  both sides\taccept that  fact situation. But the
\norder of  appointment, which  bears in\tits bosom  the ‘good
\nbye’  to   the\temployee   after  a   few  days,  calls\t for
\nconstruction in\t the light  of s.2(oo) and s. 25F and we may
\nas well read it here:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(1) The appointment is purely a temporary one for
\n\t       a period\t of 9  days but\t may  be  terminated
\n\t       earlier,\t  without   assigning\tany   reason
\n\t       therefor at the bank’s discretion;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2)  The employment,\tunless\tterminated  earlier,
\n\t       will automatically cease at the expiry of the
\n\t       period i.e., 1972.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This nine  days’ employment,  tacked on\t to  what  has\tgone
\nbefore, Fr has ripened to a continuous service for a year on
\nthe antecedent\tarithmetic of  240 days\t of broken  bits  of
\nservice.\n<\/p>\n
The legal issue
\n     The skiagram  of the  employment  order  must  now\t be.
\nstudied to   ascertain\twhich of  the rival meanings counsel
\nhave pressed  deserves preference.  Statutory  construction,
\nwhen courts  consider welfare  legislation with\t an economic
\njustice\t bias,\tcannot\tturn  on  cold\tprint  glorified  as
\ngrammatical construction  but on  teleological\tpurpose\t and
\nprotective intendment.\tHere s.\t 25F, 25B  and 2(oo)  have a
\nworkers’  mission   and\t the   input  of   Part\t IV  of\t the
\nConstitution also underscores this benignant approach. While
\ncanons of traditional sanctity can not wholly govern, courts
\ncannot go  haywire in  interpreting provisions, ignoring the
\ntext and  context. With\t these guidelines before us, we seek
\nto decode  the implications of the order of appointment. But
\nbefore doing  so, an  analysis of the legal components of s.
\n25F will facilitate the diagnostic task.\n<\/p>\n
164<\/span><\/p>\n
     The leading  case on  this facet of law is The Hospital
\nMazdoor\t Sabha(1).  Gajendragadkar,  J.\t (as  he  then\twas)
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Section 25F(b)  provides that no workman employed
\n     in any  industry who has been in continuous service for
\n     not less  than one\t year under  an\t employer  shall  be
\n     retrenched by  that employer  until he has been paid at
\n     the time  of retrenchment\tcompensation which  shall be
\n     equivalent to  fifteen  days’  average  pay  for  every
\n     completed year of service or any part thereof in excess
\n     of six  months. Clauses  (a) c  and  (e)  of  the\tsaid
\n     section prescribe\tsimilar conditions  but ” we are not
\n     concerned with them. On a plain reading of s. 25F(b) it
\n     is clear  that the\t requirement prescribed\t by it\tis a
\n     condition precedent  for the  retrenchment of  the work
\n     man. The  section provides that no workman shall be .1,
\n     retrenched until  the condition  in question  has\tbeen
\n     satisfied. It  is difficult  to accede  to the argument
\n     that when\tthe P  section imposes\tin mandatory terms a
\n     condition\tprecedent,   non-compliance  with  the\tsaid
\n     condition would  not render  the impugned\tretrenchment
\n     invalid ….  failure to comply with the said provision
\n     renders the impugned orders invalid and inoperative.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Without further  ado, we  reach the  conclusion that if
\nthe workman  swims into\t the harbour of s. 25F, he cannot be
\nretrenched without  payment, at\t the time  of  retrenchment,
\ncompensation computed  as prescribed  therein read  with  s.
\n25B(2). But, argues the appellant all these obligations flow
\nonly out  of  retrenchment,  not  termination  outside\tthat
\nspecies of  snapping employment. What, then, is retrenchment
\n? The  key to this vexed question is to be found in s. 2(oo)
\nwhich reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “2(oo)    “retrenchment” means  the termination  by the
\n\t       employer of  the service of a workman for any
\n\t       reason  whatsoever,   otherwise\tthan   as  a
\n\t       punishment inflicted  by way  of disciplinary
\n\t       action, but does not include- –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   voluntary retirement of the workman; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   retirement of  the workman\ton  reaching
\n\t\t    the\t age   of  supera-annuation  if\t the
\n\t\t    contract  of   employment  between\t the
\n\t\t    employer  and   the\t workman   concerned
\n\t\t    contains a\tstipulation in\tthat behalf;
\n\t\t    or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   termination of  the service of a workman
\n\t\t    on the ground of continued ill-health;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
for any\t reason whatsoever-very wide and almost admitting of
\nno exception.  Still, the employer urges that when the order
\nof appointment\tcarries an  automatic cessation\t of service,
\ntho period  of employment  works itself\t out  by  efflux  of
\ntimes, not by act of employer.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 866, 871-872.\n<\/p>\n
165<\/span><\/p>\n
Such cases  are outside\t the concept  of ‘retrenchment’\t and
\ncannot entail  the  burdensome\tconditions  of\ts.  25F.  Of
\ncourse, that  a nine-days’  employment, hedged\tin  with  an
\nexpress condition  of temporariness and automatic cessation,
\nmay look  like being  in a different street (if we may use a
\ncolloquialism) from telling a man off by retrenching him. To
\nretrench  is  to  cut  down.  You  cannot  retrench  without
\ntrenching or  cutting. But dictionaries are not dictators of
\nstatutory construction\twhere the  benignant mood  of a\t law
\nand, more  emphatically, the  definition  clause  furnish  a
\ndifferent denotation.  Section 2(oo)  is the  master of\t the
\nsituation and the Court cannot truncate its amplitude.\n<\/p>\n
     A break-down  of  s.  2(oo)  unmistakably\texpands\t the
\nsemantics of  retrenchment. ‘Termination…  for any  reason
\nwhatsoever’ are\t the key  words. Whatever  the reason, every
\ntermination spells retrenchment. So the sole question is-has
\nthe employee’s\tservice been  terminated  ?  Verbal  apparel
\napart, the  substance is decisive. A termination takes place
\nwhere a term expires either by the active step of the master
\nof the\trunning out  of the  stipulated term. To protect the
\nweak  against\tthe  strong  this  policy  of  comprehensive
\ndefinition has\tbeen effectuated.  Termination embraces\t not
\nmerely the  act of termination by the employer, but the fact
\nof termination\thowsoever produced.  May be, the present may
\nbe a hard case, but we can visualise abuses by employers, by
\nsuitable verbal\t devices, circumventing\t the armour of s.25F
\nand s.2(oo).  Without speculating  on possibilities,  we may
\nagree that  ‘retrenchment’ is  no longer terra incognita but
\narea covered  by an  expansive definition. It means ‘to end,
\nconclude, cease’. In the present case the employment ceased,
\nconcluded,  ended   on\t the   expiration   of\t nine\tdays
\nautomatically may  be, but  cessation all  the same. That to
\nwrite into  the order of appointment the date of termination
\nconfers no  moksha  from  s.25F(b)  is\tinferable  from\t the
\nproviso\t to   s.  25F(1).   True,  the\t section  speaks  of
\nretrenchment by\t the employer  and it is urged that some act
\nof volition  by the  employer to bring about the termination
\nis essential  to attract s. 25F and automatic extinguishment
\nof service  by effluxion  of time  cannot be  sufficient. An
\nEnglish case R. v. Secretary of State(l) was relied on where
\nLord Denning MR observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “I   think\tthat   the   word   ‘terminate’\t  or
\n     ‘termination’ is  by itself  ambiguous. It can refer to
\n     either of two things either to termination by notice or
\n     to termination  by effluxion  of time. It is often used
\n     in that dual sense in landlord and tenant and in master
\n     and servant cases. But there are several indications in
\n     this paragraph  to show  that it  refers here  only  to
\n     termination by notice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Buckley L.C., concurred and said:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In my  judgment the\twords  are  not\t capable  of
\n     bearing that  meaning. As\tcounsel for the Secretary of
\n     State has\tpoint- ed  out, the  verb ‘terminate’ can be
\n     used either transitively or
\n     1973] 2 All E.R. 103.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
166<\/span><\/p>\n
     intransitively. A\tcontract may  be said  to  terminate
\n     when it  s comes  to an end by effluxion of time, or it
\n     may be  said to  be terminated when it is determined at
\n     notice or\totherwise by some act of one of the parties.
\n     Here in  my judgment the 7 word ‘terminated’ is used in
\n     this passage  in para  190 in the transitive sense, and
\n     it postulates  some act  by somebody  which is to bring
\n     the appointment  to an  end, and is not applicable to a
\n     case in  which the\t appointment comes  to end merely by
\n     effluxion of time.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Words of  multiple import  have to be winnowed judicially to
\nsuit the  c social philosophy of the statute. So screened we
\nhold that the transitive and intransitive senses are covered
\nin the\tcurrent context.  Moreover, an\temployer  terminates
\nemployment not\tmerely by  passing an  order as\t the service
\nruns. He  can do so by writing a composite order, one giving
\nemployment and\tthe other ending or limiting it. A separate,
\nsubsequent determination  is not  the sole  magnetic pull of
\nthe provision.\tA  pre-emptive\tprovision  to  terminate  is
\nstruck by the same vice as the post-appointment termination.
\nDexterity  of\tdiction\t cannot\t  defeat   the\t articulated
\nconscience of the provision.\n<\/p>\n
     What follows  ? Had  the State  Bank known\t the law and
\nacted on  it, half-a-month’s  pay would\t have concluded\t the
\nstory. But  that did  not happen.  And now,  some years have
\npassed and  the Bank  has to  pay, for\tno service rendered.
\nEven so,  hard cases  cannot make bad law. Re-instatement is
\nthe necessary  relief that  follows. At\t what point ? In the
\nparticular  facts   and\t circumstances\tof  this  case,\t the
\nrespondent shall  be put back where he left off, but his new
\nsalary will  be what  he would draw where he to be appointed
\nin the\tsame post  today de  novo. As  for benefits, if any,
\nflowing from  service he  will be  rank below  all permanent
\nemployees in that cadre and will be deemed to be a temporary
\nhand  upto  now.  He  will  not\t be  allowed  to  claim\t any
\nadvantages in  the matter  of seniority\t or  other  priority
\ninter se  among temporary  employees on\t the ground that his
\nretrenchment is\t being declared\t invalid by  this Court. Not
\nthat we\t are laying down any general proposition of law, but
\nmake this  direction in\t the special  circumstances  of\t the
\ncase. As  for the  respondent’s emoluments, he will  have to
\npursue other remedies, if any.\n<\/p>\n
     We substantially  dismiss the appeal (C.A. 934 of 1975)
\nsubject to  the slight\tmodification made  above. There\t was
\nsome intervening  suggestion for  settlement of\t the dispute
\nbut  it\t  fell\tthrough.   We  are  persuaded  to  make\t the
\nobservation based  on that  circumstance that social justice
\nhas two\t sides and,  occasionally, one\tparty or  the  other
\nmakes r myopic mistakes resulting in further litigation.\n<\/p>\n
     Subject  to  the  above  observations,  the  appeal  is
\ndismissed. The\tparties will  bear their  costs\t throughout,
\nalthough, in cases like this, where the law is not free from
\nobscurity and  needs this  Court’s pronouncement  and one of
\nthe affected parties is weak, being a worker, the costs must
\ncome out  of public  funds as suggested in Trustees of Port,
\nBombay(1). The\tState, we  hope, will  constitute a suitors’
\nfund
\n(1) [1974] 4 S.C.C. 710.\n<\/p>\n
167<\/span><\/p>\n
which will take care of hardships and public interest in the
\narea of necessary litigation.\n<\/p>\n
     In C.A. 933 of 1975 the respondent has been re-employed
\nby the\tappellant although  in his case also we declare, for
\nreasons already\t given and subject to the same term till his
\nabsorption that\t the retrenchment  is invalid. The costs, in
\nthis appeal, will be borne by each of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed .\n12-L390SCI\/76\n168<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1111, 1976 SCR (3) 160 Author: V Krishnaiyer Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI N. SUNDARA MONEY DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/01\/1976 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. GUPTA, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-05T22:40:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-05T22:40:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2580,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976\",\"name\":\"State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-05T22:40:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-05T22:40:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976","datePublished":"1976-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-05T22:40:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976"},"wordCount":2580,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976","name":"State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-05T22:40:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-bank-of-india-vs-shri-n-sundara-money-on-16-january-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Bank Of India vs Shri N. Sundara Money on 16 January, 1976"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=46481"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46481\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}