2000 Supreme(SC) 859

2000(3) Supreme 541
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Syndicate Bank -Appellant
versus
The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association & Anr. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4263 of 1999
Decided on 25-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V.R. Reddy, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Sumathi, A.B. Dial, Sunil Murarikar, Ghan Shyam Vasisht, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K. Subba Rao, Sr. Advocate, N.R. Nath, S. Ravindra Bhat, Ms. Hetu Arora, Advocates.

Headnote:Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-Termination of service-Unauthorised absence from duty-Respondent clerk of Bank absented from duty unauthorisedly-Bank invoked Clause 16 of IVth Bipartite Settlement between management and employees and issued show cause notice-Notice returned with remark refused -Bank sent another notice stating that he voluntarily abandoned service-This notice returned with endorsement not found during delivery time - Three years thereafter employee giving representation for joining duty-Rejection of representation-Tribunal holding principles of natural justice violated as no enquiry conducted-Tribunal ordering reinstatement-High Court upholding decision views of Tribunal and High Court unsustainable-Principles of natural justice are inbuilt in Clause 16 of Bipartite Settlement-Notice was refund by employee-Clear presumption arose in favour of Bank-Question conducting inquiry did not arise-Order of reinstatement set aside.

       Held : Two principles emerge from the decisions Supreme Court (1) principles of natural justice and duty to act in just, fair and reasonable manner have to be read in Certified Standing Orders which have statutory force. These can be applied by Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal even to relations between management and workman though based on contractual obligations; and (2) where domestic inquiry was not held or it was vitiated for some reason the Tribunal or Court adjudicating an industrial dispute can itself go into the question raised before it on the basis of the evidence and other material on record. (Para 13)

        It is no point laying stress on the principles of natural justice without understanding their scope or real meaning. There are two essential elements of natural justice which are: (a) no man shall be judge in his own cause; and (b) no man shall be condemned, either civilly or criminally, without being afforded an opportunity of being heard in answer to the charge made against him. In course of time by various judicial pronouncements these two principles of natural justice have been expanded, e.g., a party must have due notice when the Tribunal will proceed; Tribunal should not act on irrelevant evidence or shut out relevant evidence; if the Tribunal consists of several members they all must sit together at all times: Tribunal should act independently and should not be biased against any party; its action should be based on good faith and order and should act in just, fair and reasonable manner. These in fact are the extensions or refinements of the main principles of natural justice stated above. (Para 16)

        In the present case action was taken by the Bank under Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement. It is not disputed that Dayananda absented himself from the work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days. It was thereafter that the Bank served a notice on him calling upon to report for duty within 30 days of the notice stating therein the grounds for the Bank to come to the conclusion that Dayananda had no intention of joining duties. Dayananda did not respond to the notice at all. On the expiry of the notice period Bank passed orders that Dayananda had voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank. Now what are requirements of principles of natural justice, which are required to be observed? These are: (1) workman should know the nature of the complaint or accusation: (2) an opportunity to state his case; and (3) the management should act in good faith which means that the action of the management should be fair, reasonable and just. All these three criteria have been fully met in the present case. Principles of natural justice are inbuilt in Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement. When evidence was led before the Tribunal, Bank produced the registered covers, which had been received back with the endorsement "refused" and the addressee "not found during delivery time." Dayananda said he never refused to receive the notice. In these circumstances Tribunal thought it necessary to hold that notice was not served on Dayananda as the Bank did not examine the postman. The notice was sent on the correct address of Dayananda and it was received back with the postal endorsement "refused." A clear presumption arose in favour of the Bank and against Dayananda. Yet the Tribunal held that no notice was given to Dayananda as postman was not produced by the Bank. This appears to us to be rather an incongruous finding by the Tribunal. Unfortunately, High Court did not go into this question at all. Considering the conduct of Dayananda all this period and after three years of his having voluntarily retired from the Bank in terms of Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement his statement that he did not receive the notice was a sheer lie. His whole edifice was built on falsehood and yet the Tribunal was there to give him relief on the platter though at the same time criticised his conduct during his employment with the Bank. (Paras 14 & 15)

       Bank has followed the requirements of Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement. It rightly held that Dayananda has voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank. Under these circumstances it was not necessary for the Bank to hold any inquiry before passing the order. An inquiry would have been necessary if Dayananda had submitted his explanation which was not acceptable to the Bank or contended that he did report for duty but was not allowed to join by the Bank. Nothing of the like has happened here. Assuming for a moment that inquiry was necessitated, evidence led before the Tribunal clearly showed that notice was given to Dayananda and it is he who defaulted and offered no explanation of his absence from duty and did not report for duty within 30 days of the notice as required in Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement. This undue reliance on the principles of natural justice by the Tribunal and even by the High Court has certainly led to miscarriage of justice as far as Bank is concerned. Conduct of Dayananda as an employee of the Bank has been astounding. It was not a case where the Tribunal should have given any relief to Dayananda and yet the Bank was diected to reinstate him with continuity of service. (Paras 17 & 18)