Point of Law: Section 11A reads as powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.

JUDGMENT :

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 5. Ms. A. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate, Assam, had appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. By filing the instant writ petition, the Industrial Cooperative Bank Limited and its Administrator viz. Shri Panna Dev, have approached this Court assailing the award dated 19/12/2019 passed by the learned Labour Court at Guwahati in case No. 1/2019 registered U/S 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1947) inter-alia praying for quashing the award dated 19/12/2019, the order dated 04/03/2021 passed by the learned Labour Court at Guwahati in case No. 1/2020 US.33 C(2) of the Act of 1947 as well as the Bakijai Proceeding registered as Bakijai Case No. 02/2021 of Kamrup (M).

3. The facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, briefly stated, are as narrated herein-below:

(i) The respondent no. 5 had joined the petitioner no. 1 Bank on 01/01/1987 as an Office Assistant. After serving the Bank for several years, the respondent no. 5 was appointed as the Branch Manager of the Guwahati Branch of the Bank by order dated 01/11/2008. Accordingly, the respondent no. 5 had functioned as the Branch Manager of the Guwahati Branch for the period from 01/11/2008 to 30/09/2010, drawing salary of Rs. 36,227.17 per month. During that time, the respondent no. 5 was also the administrative head of the Guwahati Branch. Subsequently, he was appointed as the Chief Manager (Human Resources and Administration) of the Bank, which post according to the writ petitioners, was just below the post of the Managing Director of the Bank.

(ii) While serving as the Branch Manager of the Bank, the respondent no. 5 had taken certain administrative decisions which were not found to be in accordance with the Banking norms. As such, a show cause notice dated 31/10/2012 was served upon the respondent no. 5 by providing him the facts and figures of his activities including the transactions in the OD account as well as excess drawals, by alleging that he had committed a misconduct. The respondent no. 5 was accordingly asked to submit his response.

(iii) The respondent no. 5 had submitted his reply to the show cause notice dated 31/10/2012 on 14/11/2012, admitting the fact that there were over-drawals during his tenure but he had made an attempt to justify his action by stating that the same were done as per instructions of the superior authority.

(iv) Not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the respondent no. 5, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by serving charge-memo dated 05/12/2012, containing the statement of allegations. Shri Ajoy Bhattacharjee was appointed as the Enquiry Officer so as to enquire into the charges, whereafter, the enquiry proceeding had commenced on 23/09/2013. However, before conclusion of the enquiry proceeding, Shri Ajoy Bhattacharjee was released from his responsibility as the Enquiry Officer and in his place, Shri Jogesh Chandra Das was appointed as the Enquiry Officer on 23/02/2017. In the meantime, by order dated 24/08/2016, the respondent no. 5 was placed under suspension.

(v) Being aggrieved by the order of appointment of Shri Jogesh Chandra Das as the new Enquiry Officer, the respondent no. 5, as the writ petitioner, had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 2193/2017, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 23/06/2017 with a direction upon the Bank to reinstate the respondent no. 5 and also to complete the departmental proceeding within two months.

(vi) On 14/08/2017, the enquiry proceeding was concluded, whereafter, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report dated 22/09/2017 holding that all the charges brought against the respondent no. 5 had been proved. A copy of the enquiry report was also forwarded to the respondent no. 5.

(vii) On 30/12/2017,