Back
2007 Supreme(Cal) 489
High Court Of Calcutta
Ashim Kumar Banerjee And Tapas Kumar Giri, JJ.
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT - Respondent
A. P. O 591 Of 2003
Decided On : 07/04/2007
ARIJIT CHAUDHARY, D.K.KUNDU, LAKSHMI KUMAR GUPTA, N.K.MEHTA, SOUMYA GHOSH, SUNIL GHOSH
The Labour Court is an Executing Court and once the Tribunal held that the proceeding was bad and the order of dismissal was set aside by the Tribunal, the Labour Court was only to execute the said award so that the employee could be reinstated with all back wages.
Headnote:
LIC V. ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - SECTION 11(A) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - The Calcutta High Court held that the Labour Court is an Executing Court and once the Tribunal held that the proceeding was bad and the order of dismissal was set aside by the Tribunal, the Labour Court was only to execute the said award so that the employee could be reinstated with all back wages.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent No. 4, an employee of LIC, was dismissed from service for embezzlement of funds by crediting accounts of various policy holders for a long time without them paying premiums. He challenged the dismissal before the High Court, which set aside the order and directed a fresh enquiry. The enquiry officer again found him guilty, and he was dismissed. He raised an industrial dispute, and the Tribunal held that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. LIC filed a writ petition challenging the award, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal was wrong in interfering with the order of dismissal and the learned Single Judge erred in not interfering on that score. The Tribunal went wrong in appraisal of the evidence alleging procedural infirmity, and such finding was perverse.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court could re-agitate the plea challenging the order of the Tribunal? 2. Whether the irregularities pointed out by the Tribunal were irregularities at all? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in interfering with the order of dismissal on the ground of procedural irregularity?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Labour Court is an Executing Court and once the Tribunal held that the proceeding was bad and the order of dismissal was set aside by the Tribunal, the Labour Court was only to execute the said award so that the employee could be reinstated with all back wages. 2. The plea of non-furnishing of the addresses was nothing but an attempt to confuse the issue. The policy bags were produced for inspection at the initial stage, and the grievance of the delinquent that those policy bags contained the address of those policy holders was not tenable. 3. The Tribunal was wrong in approaching the instant problem on the score of prejudice caused due to non-production of the original policy bags for inspection or non-disclosure of addresses of the concerned policy holders. The Presenting Officer was an employee of the appellant and was representing the appellant before the Enquiry Officer, hence, he was entitled to examine himself.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the learned Single judge was set aside, the writ petition was allowed, and the award of the Tribunal was set aside.
( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 was an employee of Life insurance Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "lic"), the appellant abovenamed. He was working at material times at Burdwan Branch office of the appellant. He was chargesheeted on the ground of embezzlement of fund. Specific charge against the said respondent was that he credited accounts of various policy holders for a long time whereas those policy holders did not in fact pay the premiums for the quarters for which their accounts were credited. He replied to the chargesheet by taking a plea that because of pressure of work there had been wrong entries recorded in the books of accounts. In fact he did not make any illegal gain out of such wrong entries. Relevant extract of his reply is quoted below:
"irregularities as pointed out in your letter under reply were not deliberately done by me. And it may be, that due to pressure from my then Sr. Branch Manager for maximum amount of deposit adjustments coupled with my family worries and anxieties. . . . I might have committed some mistake resulting in the irregularities as mentioned in your letter but I would once again like to state that this was neither done by me deliberately nor did I take money from anybody for personal gains but were the outcome of circumstances beyond my control for which I crave the indulgence to your taking lenient view of the whole matter and excuse me to again prove my worth. . . "
( 2 ) PERTINENT to note, as soon as the irregularities surfaced and the said respondent was asked to show cause those unpaid premiums were deposited. The domestic enquiry was held where he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and he was ultimately dismissed from service with effect from september 28, 1978. He challenged the order of dismissal before this Court. This Court, by an order dated February 5, 1981 set aside the order of dismissal after holding that the proceeding was irregularly conducted. His Lordship, however, directed the enquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry afresh after giving the said respondent an opportunity to disclose evidence afresh.
( 3 ) THE proceeding was held afresh. The said respondent, however, avoided the enquiry on one plea or the other as contended by LIC. He was again found guilty of the charges. He was given a copy of the enquiry report. He was given a second show-cause notice. He was ultimately dismissed from service as communicated by letter dated December 7, 1981. The said respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected his appeal by order dated April 22, 1981. He then raised an industrial dispute. The tribunal held that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. According to Tribunal, no witness was examined on behalf of LIC and the presenting Officer himself acted as witness. The Tribunal ultimately published an award holding that there had been failure on the part of the LIC to prove that the workman committed misconduct. The said award dated July 15, 1998 became the subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition filed by LIC. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order:
"this is an application filed by the petitioner, inter alia, challenging the order dated 11th November, 1995 and an award passed on 15th June, 1998 being Annexure "j" to the writ petition on the ground that the said order passed by the learned Tribunal holding that the domestic enquiry is bad in law is not tenable in view of the fact that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the original policy bags of the policy holders are always with the policy holders and the LIC retains only copies of the same. The further ground which has been stated in the petition is that the documents placed by the presiding Officer in the domestic enquiry was marked as exhibits without objection from the respondent No. 4. However, taking into all this aspect of the matter, I do not
