Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Sandeep V.Marne, J.
The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Manik s/o Ambadas Toge - Respondent
Writ Petition No.4601 Of 2022
Decided On : 19-10-2022
Evidence - Labour Dispute - Domestic Enquiry - [FACT OF THE CASE] The case involves a dispute over the evidence to be considered for determining the correctness of a punishment order in a labour dispute. The respondent, an employee of the petitioner bank, was dismissed for alleged financial irregularities. The labour court set aside the dismissal order, directing the bank to prove the charges before it. The bank adduced evidence before the labour court, but the evidence contradicted the findings of the domestic enquiry. The court ultimately held that there was no evidence to support the charges and ordered the respondent's reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in service. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found that the evidence adduced before the labour court contradicted the findings of the domestic enquiry, and as a result, the charges against the respondent were not proved. The court also held that the respondent was erroneously kept away from duties during the proceedings and awarded full back wages and continuity in service. [ISSUES] The main issue was whether the evidence from the domestic enquiry or the evidence adduced before the labour court should prevail in determining the correctness of the punishment order. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that in a situation where the domestic enquiry is found to be vitiated, only the evidence adduced before the labour court should be considered to establish the charges. The evidence from the domestic enquiry should be discarded altogether in such a situation. [FINAL DECISION] The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the labour court's decision to reinstate the respondent with full back wages and continuity in service.
JUDGMENT :
1. The short issue involved in the present petition is which evidence would prevail for determining correctness of punishment order - the one recorded in domestic enquiry or the one adduced before the labour court ?
2. The issue arises in the backdrop of challenge setup by Petitioner-Bank to the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Tribunal upholding the order of the Labour Court, which set aside the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on respondent.
3. Respondent was working in the services of Petitioner Bank as Agent/Cashier in its Shelgaon branch. He was placed under suspension by order dated 30.03.2015 and was later served with charge-sheet, alleging misappropriation of funds. The charge arose out of financial irregularities, noticed in the audit report of the bank. It was discovered that as against the subsidy of Rs.3,27,53,855/- which was to be disbursed to 4769 members in 9 villages whose crops were destroyed due to hailstorm, amount of Rs. 3,32,00812/-was found to be disbursed to 4458 members. This resulted in extra disbursement of amount of Rs.4,46,957/- and non-disbursal of amount to 311 members. Accordingly, financial irregularity in respect of total amount of Rs.12,51,591/- was noticed. Petitioner along with Mr. S. U. Godbole, R. R. Jadhav,S. A. Kolte and B.B.Ghodke were held responsible for such financial irregularities and after apportionment of the amount involved in such financial irregularities, it was concluded that Respondent was responsible for the amount of Rs.8,49,741/-. It was also alleged that out of said amount of Rs.8,49,741/-, he repaid amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, on 20.07.2015 and failed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.7,49,741/-.
4. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by Mr. N. L. Shaikh and Mr. B. B. Gadekar, who held Respondent and 4 others responsible for the financial irregularities. A domestic enquiry was conducted in pursuance of the memorandum of charge-sheet by the appointment of Mr. H. T. Kakade as the Enquiry Officer. Mr. N. L. Shaikh and Mr. B. B. Gadekar, who had conducted preliminary enquiry, were examined as witnesses in the domestic enquiry. After recording their evidence, Enquiry Officer submitted report holding respondent guilty of the charge, in pursuance of which petitioner Bank proceeded to issue order dated 04.03.2016, dismissing respondent from service.
5. Respondent filed a Complaint ULP No. 6 of 2016 before the Labour Court, Jalna challenging his dismissal order. The Complaint was resisted by petitioner Bank by filing written statement. The Labour Court framed preliminary issues as to whether respondent is workman and whether the enquiry was in conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. By Award-I dated 04.05.2017, the labour Court answered both the issues in affirmative. Petitioner Bank was directed to lead evidence to prove charges before the labour Court.
6. Petitioner Bank challenged the Award-I dated 04.05.2017 by filing Revision ULP No. 37 of 2017 before the Industrial Court, Jalna, which partly allowed the revision, setting aside the finding recorded by the Labour Court on the first issue with regard to respondent being a workman and remanded the matter to the labour Court to decide that issue afresh, after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on that issue. The second issue about inquiry being conducted in violation of principles of natural justice remained undisturbed. The Labour Court passed order dated 04.10.2019, once again answering issue about respondent No. 1 being workman in affirmative.
7. In pursuance of the order of the labour Court dated 04.05.2017 directing petitioner Bank to prove charges before the labour Court, petitioner Bank adduced evidence by examining two witnesses Mr. Shaikh N.L. and Mr. B. B. Gadekar before the labour Court. The labour Court delivered Award-II dated 10.10.2021 allowing complaint of respondent holding that petitioner Bank has committed unfair labour practices and it was direc
In a situation where the domestic enquiry is found to be vitiated, only the evidence adduced before the labour court should be considered to establish the charges. The evidence from the domestic enqu....
The court reaffirmed the principle that in disciplinary matters, particularly involving fraud, the domestic enquiry must follow natural justice and the resultant punishment must reflect the severity ....
The Management must present fresh evidence if a domestic enquiry is deemed unfair, as prior proceedings cannot be relied upon.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has a duty to grant the employer the opportunity to lead evidence in support of the charges once the domestic inquiry is foun....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the Tribunal's power to reassess evidence, consider absence of evidence, and draw adverse inferences in the context of disciplinary proceedings und....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a domestic inquiry, the charge is to be proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, and the pendency of a criminal trial has ....
Departmental inquiries require a preponderance of probabilities for proof, differing from the strict standards in criminal trials, and insufficient evidence can render dismissal illegal.
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
