Back
Karnataka High Court
Judges : H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS
ACHAR M.R.S/O.P.MADAVACHAR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, A.P. - Appellant
Versus
SYNDICATE BANK, MANIPAL REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR - Respondent
W. P. 20071 Of 2001
Decided On : 05/30/2006
Advocates Appeared :
ANAND, M.N.PRASANNA, P.S.RAJAGOPAL, Pradeep S.Savkar, RAMDAS, SUNDARSWAMY RAMDAS
Cases Referred: 1999 (6) SCC 667, (1997) 9 SCC 377.
Judicial Review -Scope of -Scope of - Stated. [H. N. Nagamohan Das, J]: Every executive or administrative action of the State or other statutory or public body is open to judicial scrutiny and the High Court or the Supreme Court can, in exercise of the power of judicial review under the constitution, quash the executive action or decision which is contrary to law or violative of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Cases Referred: 1999 (6) SCC 667; (1997) 9 SCC 377.
Constitution of India -Public law remedy enforceable under -Article 226 -Public law remedy enforceable under - Action of authority should fall in the realm of public law.
Cases Referred: 1999 (6) SCC 667; (1997) 9 SCC 377.
Disciplinary Enquiry -Discrimination and victimization -Discrimination and victimization - Petitioner distinguished from similarly Charge Sheeted workmen - Not an iota of evidence produced to show that the petitioners case is different from that of others - Action amounts to discrimination and victimization. [H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.] - The enquiry proceedings against all the workmen are dropped except the petitioner. The respondent has not specified the distinguishing features in respect of the petitioner treating him differently from other similarly charge sheeted workmen. There is no iota of evidence, which would distinguish the case of the petitioner from those against whom the enquiry proceedings are dropped. In the absence of any convincing reply from the respondent-bank and in the absence of any evidence, discrimination against the petitioner is writ large and this Court cannot over look the same. The charge against the petitioner is raising of derogatory and defamatory slogans against the Chairman and the Executive Director of the bank. The petitioner and others to ventilate their grievance about their service conditions, held demonstrations before the head office of the respondent-bank. It is on record that when some employees raised slogans against the Chairman and the Executive Director, the petitioner and others controlled the same and diverted the slogans in respect of their demands. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of involving the bank: to a serious loss, the levy of punishment on the petitioner alone is discriminatory and victimisation.
Cases Referred: 1999 (6) SCC 667, (1997) 9 SCC 377.
Public Law -Enforceable remedy under-Enforceable remedy under - [H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.] - Action of the authority called in question should fall in the realm of.
Cases Referred: 1999 (6) SCC 667, (1997) 9 SCC 377.
Labour and Services -Discrimination and victimization -[H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.] - Discrimination and victimization - What amounts to.
Cases Referred: 1999 (6) SCC 667, (1997) 9 SCC 377.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Industrial dispute -Section 2(A) -Industrial dispute - [H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.] - Individuals dispute relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of services - Covered by the provision - Grievance relating to withholding of back wages and reduction of basic pay of an individual workman - Not an industrial dispute.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Industrial dispute -Section 2(k) -Industrial dispute - Definition and scope. [H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.] - An industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any persons, individual disputes are not governed under this definition. The workmen as an organisation or trade union may take up the cause of individual workman. But a workman for his individual case is not entitled to pursue his remedy under Section 2(K) of the I.D. Act. The individual disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of the services of an individual workman are governed under Section 2(A) of the I.D. Act. In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of levy of penalty of withholding back wages, and reduction is basic pay by two stages for a period of eight years. Therefore the grievance of the petitioner who is an individual is not an industrial dispute as defined either under Section 2(K) or Section 2(A) of the I.D. Act.
Cases Referred: 1999 (6) SCC 667, (1997) 9 SCC 377.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated July 20, 1999, passed by the disciplinary authority, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated october 27, 1999, passed by the appellate authority, confirming the order of the disciplinary authority and also the order dated may 11, 2000, passed by the revisional authority in so far as it is adverse to the interest of the petitioner and for consequential reliefs.
( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the services of respondent-bank in the year 1972 as a clerk. In the year 1998, the petitioner was working in the respondent-bank in its branch office situated at Car Street, Udupi. The petitioner is art active member of the recognised workmen trade union in the respondent-bank. During the year 1998, the petitioner was elected as Deputy general Secretary of the trade union. During the year 1998, there were several demands raised by the trade union pending consideration by the respondent- bank. Since the respondent-bank failed to react to the demands of the union, the trade union resolved to agitate against the bank pressing their demands. Consequently, on November 19, 1998, after the office hours, the trade union held a demonstration in front of the head office of the respondent-bank at Manipal. The respondent- bank reacted to this agitation by issuing charge-sheets to 23 workmen including the petitioner alleging that they have indulged in shouting derogatory/ indecent/defamatory/ personally abusive, inhuman slogans against the chairman and the managing director and other executives of the bank. The petitioner submitted his reply on December 10, 1998 denying the charge levelled against him. The disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, initiated disciplinary enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer submitted his report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. The disciplinary authority by accepting the report of the enquiry officer, passed the impugned order of penalty dismissing the petitioner from service. The appellate authority by the order dated October 27, 1999 confirmed the order of penalty. Subsequently, the revisional authority modified the order of penalty by reducing the basic pay by two stages for a period of eight years, denied back wages and consequential benefits on reinstatement. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the penalty levied by the revisional authority, is before this Court.
( 3 ) SRI M. N. Prasanna, learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the respondent-bank passed the impugned order of penalty to victimise the petitioner for his legitimate trade union activities. He contends that initially the respondent issued identical charge-sheets to 23 workmen. Subsequently, the respondent dropped the enquiry proceedings against all the charge-sheeted workmen, except the petitioner and as such the same is discriminatory and victimisation of petitioner. He contends that the alleged misconducts committed by the petitioner do not fall under Clause 19 of the bipartite Settlement. The impugned order of punishment is disproportionate to the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner.
( 4 ) SRI Pradeep S. Sawkar, learned counsel for the respondent-bank contends that the petitioner is a workman and he is having an alternative and efficacious remedy of raising an industrial dispute. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. He contends that the misconduct committed, by the petitioner squarely falls under Clause 19. 5 (j) of the bipartite i settlement. The petitioner has admitted the charge levelled against him. The reviewing authority by taking a lenient view, passed the impugned order of penalty and the same is in accordance with law. He justifies the impugned order of penalty.
( 5 ) HEARD arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. The following questions will a
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
