Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
Standard Chartered Bank – Appellant
Versus
R.C. Srivastava – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6092 of 2021, SLP (Civil) No. 5931 of 2015
Decided On : 29-09-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226 and 227 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 11A and 17B - Assaulting the senior officers and also hurling abuses at management - Workman - Award - Alleged delinquency which he had committed on 12th January, 1988 in discharge of his duties, a charge-sheet was served upon respondent-workman with the allegation of drunkenness within the premises of appellant-Bank and for manhandling and assaulting the senior officers and also hurling abuses at management - Bank tomorrow there is a court case so do not mark you that you should first come to the Bank, sign attendance register and only you should go to court - In evening again you along with and told him not to mark Mr. B.L. that he would go to the court straight from his house without first reporting to bank - Sign attendance register and then go to the court - You and then asked to talk to Mr. Assistant Manager (Operation) who in turn advised Mr. to write court case in the attendance register which fact was advised to you as also to Mr. - alleged gross misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties, a departmental enquiry was held and in the course of enquiry, the evidence of three witnesses Mr. P.K. Seth (MW-1), Mr. B.M. (MW-2) and Mr. (MW-3), who are officers and with whom alleged incident had occurred were produced by management and in defence - Respondent-workman had not appeared in the witness box but two employees namely, Mr. (DW-1) Watchman and Mr. (DW-2) an ex-employee of Bank, were produced - Held, Court find that Tribunal has converted itself into a Court of Appeal as an appellate authority and has exceeded its jurisdiction while appreciating finding recorded in course of domestic enquiry and tested on the broad principles of charge to be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is a test in criminal justice system and has completely forgotten fact that domestic enquiry is to be tested on principles of preponderance of probabilities and if a piece of evidence is on record which could support the charge which has been levelled against delinquent unless it is per se unsustainable or perverse, ordinarily is not to be interfered by Tribunal, more so when the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and proper - Tribunal has completely overlooked and exceeded its jurisdiction while interfering with finding recorded during the course of enquiry in furtherance of which, the respondent was dismissed from service and the High Court has also committed a manifest error while passing the judgment impugned - Court should not be based on mere hypothesis. It cannot overturn the decision of the management on ipse dixit - Its jurisdiction under Section 11A of Act 1947 although is a wide one but it must be judiciously exercised. Judicial discretion - Court that a poor workman has been targeted by the appellant and throughout his life, he had been in the litigation and what has been paid to him is his legitimate dues and interference, if made, may cause prejudice to him - Respondent-workman had been paid and had attained age of superannuation on 31st January, 2012, stay was granted by this Court in reference to back wages by order while upholding the order of penalty of dismissal from service passed by the authority in the domestic enquiry, we consider it appropriate to observe that no recovery shall be made in reference to the payment which has been made over to the workman in the interregnum period, of which a reference has been made by us afore-stated – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st November, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upholding the reinstatement with full back wages awarded by the Tribunal dated 14th September, 2006.
3. The facts in brief which are relevant for the purpose are that the respondent-workman was an employee of the appellant-Bank and for the alleged delinquency which he had committed on 12th January, 1988 in discharge of his duties, a charge-sheet dated 27th January, 1988 was served upon the respondent-workman with the allegation of drunkenness within the premises of the appellant-Bank and for manhandling and assaulting the senior officers and also hurling abuses at the management. The relevant portion of the charge-sheet dated 27th January, 1988 reads as under:
On the same day i.e. 12.1.1988, Mr. Seth alongwith Mr. Arun Sharma were in the office at about 9.00 PM and were going to close the branch when you alongwith Mr. B.L. Mishra, Mr. Than Singh and an outsider entered the bank hall in a drunken state and started discussing the issue regarding marking late in the attendance register. Mr. A. Sharma tried to pacify you and the others by pointing out that such requirements are normal norms of the office and that the officers were carrying out the instructions on the senior officers and that such requirements are only as per office rules. It is reported that both Mr. Mishra and Mr. Than Singh abused the Management/Officers as you were looking on Mr. Than Singh said:
“Ek Ek ko dekh lenge, Maa chod dunga, Ek ek ki tang tod denge.”
Mr. Misra abused thus:
“Maa chod dunga. Ek Ek ki maa chod dunga.”
With persuasion of Mr. Arun Sharma and Mr. Seth, officers of the bank, you alongwith the others went out of the bank hall and stood in the bank’s compound as Mr. Sharma, locked up the premises. Again both Mr. Misra and Mr. Than Singh started abusing Mr. Seth and the Management in logon ke maa chod denge. Salon ke tange tod denge. In the meantime Mr. Sharma went to the residence of Mr. Sikka in the bank compound to deposit the bank’s keys. The moment Mr. Sharma went out you alongwith the outsider pulled Mr. Seth’s tie from his neck and manhandled and slapped him resulting in his spectacles being broken and he also got a bruise on his left eye.
The above said acts on your part if proved will constitute the following gross misconduct under paragraph 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966, which reads as under:
19.5 (c): Drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank.
(d) Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank and you are hereby charged with the above gross acts of misconduct.”
4. For the alleged gross misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties, a departmental enquiry was held and in the course of enquiry, the evidence of three witnesses namely, Mr. P.K. Seth (MW-1), Mr. B.M.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
