Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Axis Bank Limited - Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar Mishra, S/o. Sri Sachidanand Mishra - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 383 of 2020
Decided On : 03-07-2023
Jurisdiction - Labour Court - Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 - [Section 26(2)]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an employee of the appellant-bank, was dismissed from service and filed a complaint under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953. The Labour Court held the dismissal to be unjustified and directed reinstatement with 25% back wages. The appellant challenged the decision on jurisdictional grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue of jurisdiction was not raised before the Labour Court and was first raised before the writ Court. The court considered the scope of judicial review and dismissed the writ petition, leading to the present appeal.
Issues: The jurisdictional issue of the Labour Court's authority to entertain the complaint and the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceeding and that the jurisdiction is to be considered based on the date of cause of action. The court also emphasized that the jurisdictional issue goes to the root of the case and must be decided at any stage if raised.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the order of the learned Single Judge, and granted liberty to the respondent to seek remedy through the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against judgment/order dated 11.11.2020 passed in W.P. (L) No. 5412 of 2019 by learned Single Judge whereby and whereunder order dated 22.08.2019 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 2 of 2013 has been refused to be interfered with, by dismissing the writ petition, holding that the award passed by the Labour Court suffers from no infirmity.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition, read as under:
The case of the petitioner – Management is that the respondent – employee was appointed to the post of Assistant Vice President, who joined the services of Petitioner-Management on 28.07.2008 at its Jamshedpur office. After satisfactory completion of probation period, the services of the employee-respondent was confirmed vide letter dated 09.02.2009. The concerned employee-respondent was thereafter transferred to Dhanbad vide Personnel Transfer Letter dated 23.02.2009 where he joined on 25.02.2009 and started taking necessary initiatives for opening of the proposed new City Centre Branch at Dhanbad. However, while posted at Dhanbad, the concerned employee-respondent was taken into judicial custody on 07.03.2009 by the Gujarat Police and was taken to Valsad in connection with Vapi GIDC P.S. Case No. 18 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471, 474, 484, 485, 114, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
In view of detailed enquiry pending against the concerned employee-respondent for the act of alleged misconduct done by him during his previous employment for which he was taken into custody, order of suspension dated 29.04.2009 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner-Bank and the concerned employee-respondent was duly informed that during the period of his suspension, his headquarter shall be at Dhanbad. The order of suspension was duly received by his father-in-law. The concerned employee-respondent was also granted liberty to file appeal within 15 days, but he chose not to file the same and as such the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority attained finality.
Thereafter, the petitioner-Management, vide its letter dated 24.11.2009 (acknowledged on 01.12.2009), intimated the employee-respondent (through Sub-Jailer, Sub Jail, Valsad, Gujarat to provide necessary explanation within 7 days of receipt of the letter as to why Bank should not discharge him from the services in terms of Clause 11.1(6) of the Staff Rules. The employee-respondent sent his explanation on 07.12.2009 requesting therein for 45 days’ time for submitting proper explanation after receiving the FSL report over his disputed signature giving rise to attribution of criminal liability under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Again vide letter dated 12.01.2010, the employee-respondent informed the petitioner-Management that he is still awaiting the report of the FSL to prove his innocence. However, despite substantial time granted to him, the employee-respondent could not furnish the detailed explanation and he continued to remain in jail. Due to continuous judicial custody, the employee-respondent remained absent for long time and as such, he was discharged from service in terms of the Discharge Order issued vide letter dated 07.12.2010. However, in terms of the said Order, despite the fact that services of the employee-respondent was not available to the petitioner-Management/Bank, he was paid 75% of the salary as subsistence allowance.
After the bail being granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the employee-respondent was released from the judicial custody on 29.04.2011, Thereafter, he sent email to the HR Team of the Management-Bank along with letter dated 28.05.2011 seeking reinstatement in service, which was duly responded by the petitioner-Management v
The jurisdictional issue can be raised at any stage of the proceeding and must be considered based on the date of cause of action. The court's jurisdiction is to be determined by the statutory mandat....
Section 11A reads as powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a recovery application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act when the claim....
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
