MOOT PROPOSITION: BANK OF ROOSEVELT VS ITS EMPLOYEES

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
DR. BALWINDER KAUR SUNNY KARTIK TOPPO
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SEMESTER-IV SEC B
LABOUR LAW ROLL NO.- 170
HNLU, Raipur

“HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAYA RAIPUR

“I thusly pronounce that, this project submitted for Hidayatullah National Law University
(HNLU), Chhattisgarh is unique and not counterfeited without references. It is written in the
most natural sounding way for me as obscure from well-established realities subsequent to
perusing a variety of articles, diaries and books identified with this point. It is my own just as
pursue proficient assessment which till now, I comprehend and ready to communicate after
the examination.”

- Sunny Kartik Toppo

Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 296, 1953 SCR 686

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

[SCR. ORDER XXII RULE 2(1)]

(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

Bank of Roosevelt vs Its employees

1. The Bank of Roosevelt is a national bank of the country India established in the year
1890. It runs across the nation and has a regular business of over 20 million customers.
It also stands as one of the largest banks in the developing nation and is a hub for
employment for a large share of the population of the country.
2. In the year 1970, the Bank produced several new recruitment schemes for the new batch
of employees. The prevailing employees of the Bank were dissatisfied with certain
terms and benefits of the new schemes and expressed their disapproval to the employers.
3. The bank rigidly declared the scope of schemes to be something of their own
jurisdiction and that no such disapproval was called for. Pursuant to this, the employees
reached out to the industrial tribunal for a settlement. They demanded equal monetary
benefits as those employed newly, based on the scheme.
4. Prior to this, in the year 1946, the bank had also released a change in the retirement age
of the employees. The terms had a shift from the relevant age of 65 years to 63 years for
reasons unknown to the employees.
5. The bank justified it by stating that the employment needs of the company would be
better fulfilled if the age of retirement is shifted as mentioned. The country, in the said
time period, had been recovering from a lapsing economic situation. By way of a
general notification, and as per the Annual National Budget of that year, the country
India had been allocating extra efforts toward the employment scheme of the population.
6. After the notification, the workers surrendered to the prevailing orders and many
underwent an unjustified retirement. Aggrieved by such a sudden change, the workers
approached the Industrial Tribunal in the year 1947 after the enactment of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
7. There have also been instances of more such disputes in the past. The Bank of Roosevelt
exercises a respectable position and recognition from the government of India. It has
often released beneficiary schemes for its customers that have been applauded. It also
has a history of being a strong contributor to the growth of the nation ever since the
lapsing economic situations arose.
8. On April 18, 1971, the employees of the Bank sat on a general strike in response to the
terms of the new scheme employed by the Bank. The workers contended that the Bank
had already started the recruitment for the year 1971, for which the terms were drafted
and this was unacceptable to the employees.
9. 9. In response to such a strike, the bank informed the striking workers that if they didn't
go back to work by April 24, 1971, they would be judged to have voluntarily abandoned
their positions.
10. The employees of the Bank, being in a considerably large number, decided to ignore the
notice assuming that no such action would be taken by the Bank. Meanwhile, they also
believed that such an act on the part of the Bank would be opposed nationally and that
since the dispute was still pending, the same is not possible.
11. However, on April 27, 1971, the Bank issued a subsequent notice and terminated them
from their service. A tremendous number of 1566 employees were terminated from their
service. Some of them were newly employed, and some were on the verge of retirement.
12. Since the Bank had a status of a national bank and dealt with a large number of
customers, the dispute called for the intervention of the government of India. After a
number of discussions, the Bank agreed to take back the employees except 200
employees against whom the same had objections on account of their alleged subversive
activities and other objectionable and unlawful conduct before and during the strike.
13. The aggrieved sight of 200 employees led to the constitution of a tribunal by the
Government of India on 2nd July 1971. The tribunal was tasked with making decisions
about the 200 employee dismissals.
14. During the course of the dispute, the Bank submitted that it was due to the objections it
had regarding the employees in the dispute that it had dismissed them from service.
15. The issue was resolved by a tribunal ruling on February 9, 1971, which denied the
reinstatement of the 200 employees on the only pretext that they had engaged in an
illegal strike. Hence, the Bank had the right to fire them.
 16. The Tribunal did, however, offer the fired employees’ compensation in the form of
salary and benefits at half the rates from the date of their termination until the day the
award was published.
17. Hereafter, the employees approached the appellate tribunal which ruled in the favour of
the employees and ordered a reinstatement of the workers in the Bank.
18. During the appeal, the Bank had argued that the dismissal stemmed from recourse to the
illegal strike by the employees and hence was valid. The appellate tribunal rejected this
claim and ordered the above award.
19. The Bank, aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal has approached the
Supreme Court of India on the following questions of law:
(i) The strike was illegal and hence the Bank had the right to justify the dismissal
of the 200 employees.
(ii) That the dismissal of the employees during the pendency of the dispute in the
Industrial Tribunal was not in contravention of the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, of 1947.
(iii) That the Appellate Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to order the
reinstatement of the aggrieved employees.

NOTE: All the laws are “pari materia” with laws in India.