employees be entitled to on reinstatement. The case of the z959 employees was that the Bank wanted to penalise the active trade -· unio.n workers by the said dismissals while the Bank mai:gtained !h• Punjab that the employees were guilty of participation in illegal strikes National Bank, Ltd. intended to paralyse its business and scare away its customers. v. The Industrial Tribunal did not hear evidence and, by its final Its Workmen award, held that. the strikes being illegal, the Bank was, on that ground alone, justified in dismissing the employees. Efen so, it directed the Bank to make certain payments to the employees on compassionate grounds. The Bank as well as the employees appealed. The Labour Appellate Tribunal held that even though the strikes· were illegal under s. 23(b) read with s. 24(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947• the Bank had, by entering into the agreement with the Government of India, waived its right to take penal action against the employees for joining the illegal strikes and that, therefore, an enquiry should be held on additional evidence to decide the disputes on merits. Against this interlocutory order the Bank appealed to this Court and it was held by this Court that while the strikes were no doubt illegal under s. 23(b) of the Act, the orders of dismissal 'Passed by the Bank were no less so under s. 33 of the Act, and it dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal, thereafter, heard the cases on merits, directed the reinstatement of 136 of the said employees, but refused to reinstate the re;;t w horn it found guilty of issuing posters and circulars subversive of the credit of the Bank. Both the parties appealed to this Court. Preliminary objections were raised on behalf of the said employees that, (1) in view of ·the decision of this Court dismissing the Bank's appeal against the said interlocutory order the subseqm:nt inquiry by the Tribunal and the orders of dismissal must be held to be void and, (2) no charges having been admittedly framed nor any proper enquiry helcl by the Bank against the employees, the orders of dismissal were wholly invalid. It was urged, inter .aJia, on behalf of the Bank in the appeals that participation 'in a pen-down strike by itself amounted to misconduct sufficient to disentitle an employee to reinstatement and that the entire body of strikers, being collectively responsible for the publication of the subversive documents in question, the dismissed employees could by no means escape liability.
