Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
West Bengal State Electricity Board & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Third Industrial Tribunal & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 8962 of 2003 With CAN 1 of 2014 (Old No. CAN 1632 of 2014)
Decided on : 27-07-2023
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - APPROVAL OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION - ENQUIRY - FAIRNESS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - EMPLOYEE GUILTY OF DEFALCATION - ACCEPTANCE OF GUILT - APPROVAL OF PUNISHMENT BY TRIBUNAL - CONDITIONS - SCOPE OF SECTION 33(2)(B) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947.
Fact of the Case:
The West Bengal State Electricity Board initiated disciplinary proceedings against an employee for defalcation of funds. The employee accepted his guilt in writing and orally before the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service, which was challenged before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal refused to grant approval for the punishment, holding that the charges were vague and baseless, and the condition of payment of one month's salary was not duly complied with.
Finding of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court held that the Tribunal erred in not considering the employee's admission of guilt and the payment of one month's salary. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents to hold that an admission of guilt need not be proved and that judicial admissions can be the foundation of the rights of the parties. The Court found that the Tribunal's findings were not sustainable and set aside the order refusing approval for the punishment.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant approval for the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 2. Whether the employee's admission of guilt was sufficient to establish the charges against him. 3. Whether the condition of payment of one month's salary was duly complied with.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scope of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was discussed, and it was held that the Tribunal is required to examine whether the order of dismissal or discharge is bona fide, whether it was by way of victimization or unfair labour practice, and whether the conditions contained in the proviso were complied with. 2. The Court held that the employee's admission of guilt in writing and orally before the Enquiry Officer was sufficient to establish the charges against him. 3. The Court found that the condition of payment of one month's salary was duly complied with, as the Disciplinary Authority had remitted an amount equivalent to one month's wages to the employee.
Final Decision: The Calcutta High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal refusing approval for the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Court upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of removal from service.
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Rao, J.
1. The West Bengal State Electricity Board has filed the present writ application against the order passed by the Judge, Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal dated July 30, 2002 wherein the Learned Tribunal held that the Board has failed to establish the case against the respondent no. 2 by producing sufficient evidence before the Tribunal for approval of the action taken by the petitioners.
2. It is found from record that after filing of the present writ application, several attempts were made to serve the copy of the writ application upon the private respondent but the same could not be served and finally as per the direction of this Court, the writ petitioner had published the notice of this case in the English Daily News Paper and filed affidavit of service but in spite of substituted service, none appears on behalf of the private respondent and thus this Court had no option but to proceed with the case in the absence of the private respondent.
3. The private respondent while working as Assistant (Cash) and posted at Gangarampur Group, West Bengal State Electricity Board (herein after referred to as “WBSEB”), an enquiry was initiated against the respondent no.2 on the allegation that the private respondent has defalcated an amount of Rs. 30,603.50/-from the cash of Gangarampur Group E/s. and utilised the said sum for his personal purpose from February 24, 1996 to March 17, 1996 thereby causing loss to the WBSEB. The respondent no. 2 did not deposit the revenue in the Board’s account in full on the same day of collection or the on the next working day and he retained a considerable amount of revenue collection which was not deposited.
4. On June 12, 1997, the Disciplinary Authority has issued a Memorandum to the respondent along with Article of Charges with list of documents and list of witness and directed the respondent no. 2 to submit his reply to the said Memorandum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same.
5. In reply to the Memorandum, the respondent had accepted the charges by stating that I am agreed with all the charges framed against me as categorically stated in the articles. He further stated that during the related period, the circumstances compelled me to utilise Board’s money for my personal purpose. In the reply, the respondent no. 2 has prayed for mercy.
6. Even on acceptance of guilt, the Disciplinary Authority has appointed the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the respondent. After appointment of the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer had issued notice to the respondent no. 2 to appear before the Enquiry Officer and on September 22, 1997, the respondent no. 2 had appeared before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer had explained the charges levelled against the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 accepted his guilt before the Enquiry Officer both orally as well as in writing. The acceptance of the guilt recorded in writing in the daily order sheet and the respondent no. 2 has also put his signature in the said order sheet on the same day.
7. As the respondent no. 2 has accepted his guilt orally as well in writing and accordingly the Enquiry Officer has submitted his findings to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the enquiry report, had issued show-cause notice to the respondent no. 2 by enclosing the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the proposed punishment to the respondent no. 2. On receipt of the show-cause notice along with findings of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent no.2 has submitted his reply to the Disciplinary Authority.
8. On receipt of the reply, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of punishment of removal from service of the respondent no. 2 on December 29, 1998.
9. Since an Industrial Dispute was pending before the Third Industrial Trib
An employee's admission of guilt can be the foundation of the rights of the parties, and the Industrial Tribunal erred in not considering the employee's admission of guilt and the payment of one mont....
The court emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) is limited to assessing victimization, not the detailed legality of a domestic inquiry.
The court's decision was based on the finding that the termination was not with an intention to victimize the workman, and the principles of natural justice in the domestic enquiry were not adjudicat....
Rejection of an approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deems that the order of discharge or dismissal had never been passed, entitling the employee to reinst....
Section 17 B of I.D.Act reads as payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher courts.
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
