- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Bank Of India And Another v. S.B.I Employees' Union And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The employees of the State Bank of India filed a writ petition before a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court challenging the management’s authority to fix working hours, recess hours, and to stagger the recess period. The Single Judge allowed the petition, relying on earlier Division Bench decisions of the same High Court. Following an earlier Division Bench order in a similar matter, the Single Judge granted a certificate of fitness under Article 134-A of the Constitution to enable an appeal to the Supreme Court. The present Supreme Court proceeding concerns the validity of that certificate.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a learned Single Judge of a High Court can issue a certificate of fitness under Article 134-A for an appeal to the Supreme Court when clause (3) of Article 133 bars appeals from judgments of a single judge.
- Whether the certificate granted in the present case fulfils the constitutional prerequisites of Article 133(1), given that the matter does not fall under Article 132(1) or Article 134(1)(c).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional framework governing appellate certificates and reached the following conclusions:
- Article 134-A is not an independent source of appellate jurisdiction; it merely prescribes the procedure for granting certificates contemplated in Articles 132(1), 133(1), and 134(1)(c).
- The present case does not involve (a) a substantial constitutional question under Article 132(1) nor (b) a criminal proceeding under Article 134(1)(c). Therefore, the only possible route would be under Article 133(1).
- Clause (3) of Article 133 expressly prohibits any appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment, decree, or final order of a single judge of a High Court unless Parliament legislates otherwise. Consequently, the Single Judge lacked authority to grant the certificate.
- The prior issuance of a certificate by a Division Bench in a comparable matter cannot override the constitutional restriction contained in Article 133(3).
Holding and Implications
Certificate Revoked. The Supreme Court revoked the certificate of fitness issued by the learned Single Judge. However, it directed that the papers be treated as a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution and be listed for preliminary hearing.
Implications: The order clarifies that, due to Article 133(3), a single judge of a High Court cannot certify an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134-A. The decision affects only the route of appeal in this matter and sets no new substantive precedent beyond reaffirming the constitutional bar.
Order
1. The certificate on the basis of which this appeal is filed is issued by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay under Article 134-A of the Constitution in respect of an order passed by him in a writ petition in which the employees of the State Bank of India had questioned the right of the management to fix the hours of work and the hours of recess and its right to stagger the period of recess and had prayed for other consequential reliefs. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition following certain earlier decisions of the High Court rendered by the Division Benches. He however proceeded to grant a certificate of fitness to file an appeal against his decision before this Court following an earlier order of a Division Bench granting such a certificate in respect of one of those earlier decisions. He issued the certificate under Article 134-A of the Constitution without referring to the article under which the appeal could be filed. Article 134-A of the Constitution reads thus:
“134-A. Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred to in clause (1) of Article 132 or clause (1) of Article 133, or clause (1) of Article 134,—
(a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own motion; and
(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after the passing or making of such judgment, decree, final order or sentence,
determine, as soon as may be after such passing or making, the question whether a certificate of the nature referred to in clause (1) of Article 132, or clause (1) of Article 133 or, as the case may be, sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 134, may be given in respect of that case.”
2. The certificate contemplated under Article 134-A of the Constitution can only be a certificate which is referred to in clause (1) of Article 132 or in clause (1) of Article 133 or in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 134 of the Constitution. This is quite obvious from the language of Article 134-A of the Constitution. This case does not fall either under Article 132(1) or under sub-clause (c) of Article 134(1) as it neither involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution nor it is a criminal proceeding. It can only fall, if at all, under Article 133(1) of the Constitution. Article 133 of the Constitution reads thus:
“133. (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under Article 134-A—
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under clause (1) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly decided.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one judge of a High Court.”
3. Clause (3) of Article 133 says that notwithstanding anything in that article no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one judge of the High Court. Before the introduction of Article 134-A of the Constitution by the Forty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution there was no express provision in Articles 132, 133 and 134 of the Constitution regarding the time and manner in which an application for a certificate under any of those articles could be made before the High Court. There was also a doubt as to the power of the High Court to issue a certificate suo motu under any of those articles. Article 134-A was enacted to make good the said deficiencies. Article 134-A does not constitute an independent provision under which a certificate can be issued. It is ancillary to Article 132(1), Article 133(1) and Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. That is the reason for the use of words “if the High Court certifies under Article 134-A” in Article 132(1) and Article 133(1) and for the use of the words certifies under Article 134-A in Article 134(1)(c). The High Court can issue a certificate only when it is satisfied that the conditions in Article 132 or Article 133 or Article 134 of the Constitution as the case may be are satisfied. In the instant case such a certificate could not have been issued by reason of clause (3) of Article 133 of the Constitution by the learned Single Judge.
4. The fact that in a similar case a certificate had been issued by a Division Bench of the High Court consisting of two judges in a case decided by the Division Bench did not empower the Single Judge to issue the certificate under Article 133(1) of the Constitution in a case decided by him. The restriction placed by clause (3) of Article 133 of the Constitution could not be got over by relying upon the order of the Division Bench.
5. We, therefore, revoke the certificate. This petition of appeal may, however, be treated as a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution and posted for preliminary hearing.
Alert