Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4678
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
M. Velayudham
Versus
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court & Another
W.P. No.30433 of 2008
Decided On :Decided on : 07-12-2011
For the Petitioner - Balan Haridass, Advocate.
For the Respondents - R2 - C. Seethapathy, Advocate, R1- Tribunal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a fair domestic enquiry, the proportionality of the punishment imposed, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:
Industrial Dispute - Bank Employee - Industrial Disputes Act (I.D.Act) - Section 11A - 1983 II LLJ 232, 2011 I LLN 77 (DB)(Mad), W.P.No.7716 of 1998, W.P.No.21625 of 2009, 2010 4 LLJ 401 - The court discussed the evidence on record, the fairness of the domestic enquiry, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The court held that the action of the respondent management in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement against the petitioner is legal and justified.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee of the bank, was placed under suspension and subsequently faced a domestic enquiry for alleged misconduct related to altering and preparing supplementary LCCRs without proper authorization, causing delay in realization of the amount by the Bank, and engaging in disproportionate financial transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal did assign reasons for its conclusion and considered the evidence which was placed before the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry. The court held that the award passed by the Tribunal calls for no interference and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the proportionality of the punishment imposed, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the proportionality of the punishment, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the award of the Tribunal and finding no grounds for interference.
1. The petitioner, a former employee of the second respondent bank, has filed this writ petition, challenging the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, the first respondent herein in I.D.No.20 of 2006, dated 26.02.2008. By the impugned award, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition and confirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was appointed in the second respondent bank as a Sub-Staff on 19.12.1979. During 1987, he was promoted as clerk and was working in the Mowbrays Road branch, Chennai. Whileso, he was placed under suspension with effect from 09.07.2002, in connection with certain misconducts. A charge memo dated 18.01.2003, was issued to the petitioner containing the imputation of misconduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation and not satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority directed domestic enquiry to be conducted. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry officer submitted his findings on 28.11.2003, holding that the charges are proved. The findings of the enquiry officer were communicated to the petitioner and he was also given opportunity to submit his further representation and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the disciplinary authority by order dated 14.01.2004, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority, by order dated 17.09.2004. The petitioner raised a dispute and the Central Government by order dated 24.02.2006, referred the dispute to the first respondent Tribunal for adjudication to decide whether the action of the second respondent management in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner is legal and justified and to what relief the petitioner is entitled to?
3. The first respondent Tribunal registered the reference as I.D.No.20 of 2006, and issued notices to the petitioner and the respondent management. Before the Tribunal both parties did not lead any oral evidence. The petitioner marked four documents as Exhibits W-1 to W-4 and the management marked 20 documents as Exhibits M-1 to M20. The Tribunal framed two points for determination as stated in the order of reference. By award dated 26.02.2008, both the points were answered against the petitioner and the Tribunal held that the action of the respondent management in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement against the petitioner is legal and justified. Challenging the said award, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal merely extracted the pleadings and without discussing the evidence on record erroneously dismissed the Industrial dispute. It is further submitted that the petitioner has established by elaborate pleading that he had no role in sending the discounted cheques for clearing and without considering the same, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the dispute. Further, it is contended that the records namely, the weekly LCRC statement and monthly reconciliation statement which were prepared by the petitioner were not questioned by the Branch Manager or by any other officer and the Tribunal failed to appreciate this aspect and erroneously dismissed the dispute. The learned counsel further submitted that this is a fit case where the impugned award has to be set aside and the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Further, it is submitted that when a jurisdiction has been conferred on the Tribunal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D.Act), the Tribunal ought to have recorded a finding as regards the correctness of the finding of misconduct and in the instant case, the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned award is illegal.
5. It is further contended that the power of the Tri
