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

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Since, common questions of law and facts arise in these petitions, therefore, both are being decided by a common judgment.

2. Petitioner in CWP No. 4844 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘workman’) after having served State Bank of India (for short, ‘the Bank’) for about 33 years was scheduled to retire on 31.1.2012. He was granted extension in service till 31.1.2014.

3. The Bank, on 5.1.2013, served a charge memo on the workman with following charges:

(i) Charge No.1

You created nuisance in the branch premises during business hours and disrupted smooth and normal functioning of the branch on 28.5.2012 when a letter bearing No. Br/AWS/1 regarding your unauthorised absence was served on you. You misbehaved with the Branch Manager and tore letter No. Br/AWS/1 dated 28.5.2012 into pieces.

(ii) Charge No.2

You threatened the Branch Manager on 28.5.2012 and used abusive language.

(iii) Charge No.3

You demonstrated before the ADB branch on 28.5.2012 without giving any prior notice to the bank with regard to demonstration. Subsequently you organized lunchtime demonstration from 8.6.2012 to 18.6.2012 again without giving any prior notice.

(iv) Charge No.4

On 29.5.2012, you disrupted the smooth functioning of the Branch by insisting that the box containing remittance be taken out by the Branch Manager. When an officer of the Branch namely Sh. Surjeet Singh volunteered to lift the remittance box up to the banking hall and was trying to engage the services of canteen boy to carry the box up to the vehicle, you came alongwith Sh. Madan Bhandari, Senior Special Assistant and Sh. Raj Mal Guard up to the entrance of the Branch and prevented the canteen boy from carrying the box further up to the vehicle.

(v) Charge No.5

You deliberately flouted system and procedures on several occasions in the past with an intention to undermine the authority of the Branch Manager and in the process seriously increased the operational risk of the Branch. One instance is given as under:

When the Branch Manager asked you for special leave application already availed of from 5.4.2012 to 11.4.2012, you instead of giving leave application, superimposed with remarks ‘Special Central Committee Meeting’ in the attendance register in gross violation of service rules.

(vi) Charge No.6

You unauthorisedly absented yourself from duty on 23.5.2012, 22.5.2012 and 26.5.2012 without any intimation or application.

(vii) Charge No.7

You disobeyed office order dated 17.7.2012 and 18.7.2012 and did not work as Cash Manager from 17.7.2012 to 19.7.2012.

(viii) Charge No.8

You proceeded on medical leave from 26.7.2012 again without producing relevant medical certificate.

(ix) Charge No.9

You issued a cheque bearing No. 043887 dated 20.8.2012 amounting to Rs.3,75,000/- in favour of Sh. Sarvesh Arora from account No. 11358897046 without having sufficient balance in the account which was returned on 1.9.2012.

4. Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 19.10.2013, held all the charges proved against the workman. The Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 6.11.2013, imposed the penalty of “dismissal from service” against the workman. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the workman.

5. Thereafter, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The conciliation proceedings could not be completed within 45 days, therefore, the workman approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) under section 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act ( for short, ‘the Act’) by way of ID No. 93 of 2014.

6. The Tribunal in the first instance adjudicated on the fairness of enquiry proceedings held against the workman and vide order dated 11.2.2016 ruled against the Bank. The Enquiry proceedings were held not to have been conducted in fair and reasonable manner and further violation of the principles of natural justice was also held. Indisputably, the Bank did not challenge order dated 11.2.2016 passed by the