Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3759
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUBBIAH, J.
The Deputy General Manager (SME), State Bank of India, Chennai & Another
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Chennai
W.P. No. 24952 of 2012 & M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2012 & W.P. No. 2529 of 2013
Decided on: 17-10-2014
For the Petitioners:G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondents:R. Suresh Kumar for M/s. K.M. Vijayan associates, Advocates.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Section 11A - Order of termination – Quash of order – Employment and service - It is case of Management that Workman joined service of State Bank of India - While he was working as sub-staff in Branch during office hours Employee left Bank premises without prior permission from his Superior Officer and returned to Bank along with outsiders - When he returned to Bank along with outsider armed guards at entrance of Bank Premises viz. resisted them but Workman shouted at them by saying court have taken permission from Assistant General Manager two days earlier who are you to question me - If court want you go and report to Assistant General Manager – Thereafter with help of outsider Employee hit nails on wall panel at entrance hall of Bank in ground floor and hung a portrait without prior permission from Management - A memo was issued to Employee by Management referring to above said incident and calling upon him to explain as to why action should not be taken against him – Held, Counsel for Workman has made a detailed argument by inviting attention of this Court to each of charges and findings of Tribunal and contended that Tribunal while directing Management to reinstate Workman ordered for withholding of back wages hence by re-appreciating evidence order for withholding back wages passed by Tribunal has to be set aside – But it is well settled legal principle that this Court while dealing matter under Section 226 of Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate evidence to set aside findings rendered by Tribunal - Only if finding of Tribunal is perverse this Court can make an interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India – But it is not case of Workman that findings of Tribunal is perverse - On other hand it is submission of counsel for Workman that Tribunal without properly appreciating evidence confirmed the findings of Management - It is another submission of counsel appearing for Workman submitted that in Para of impugned award Tribunal had come to conclusion that charges are not proved against Workman but after coming to such a conclusion in subsequent paragraphs Tribunal had taken a different view as against Workman which would show that Tribunal has ordered for withholding back wages without proper appreciation of evidence and non-application of mind hence impugned award passed by Tribunal with regard to withholding of back wages has to be quashed - But on perusal of Para of impugned award court find that Tribunal has only recorded submissions of counsel for Workman in said Para and it is not finding of Tribunal – Therefore court not inclined to accept submission made by counsel for Workman in this regard - Writ petition allowed
1. Both these writ petitions have been filed questioning the award dated 30.04.2012 in I.D.No.90 of 2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai. W.P.No.24952 of 2012 has been filed by the Management of State Bank of India, questioning the direction given by the Tribunal to reinstate the 2nd respondent/employee, without backwages, but with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. W.P.No.2529 of 2012 has been filed by the Workman questioning the same award with regard to withholding of backwages as punishment to him.
2. Since the issues involved in both the above writ petitions are interconnected to each other, they are disposed of by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as Management and Workman.
3. The brief facts, in nutshell, are as follows:-
3(a) It is the case of the Management that the Workman Gowrishankar joined the service of the State Bank of India as Daftry on 09.06.1986. While he was working as sub-staff in the Adyar Branch, on 15.07.2004 during office hours at 02.00 pm, the Employee left the Bank premises without prior permission from his Superior Officer and returned to the Bank along with the outsiders. When he returned to the Bank along with the outsider, the armed guards at the entrance of the Bank Premises viz., one Maheswaran and one Chandran resisted them; but, the Workman shouted at them by saying I have taken permission from Assistant General Manager two days' earlier; who are you to question me? If you want, you go and report to Assistant General Manager. Thereafter, with the help of the outsider, the Employee hit the nails on the wall panel at the entrance hall of the Bank in the ground floor and hung a portrait of Dr. Ambedkar, without prior permission from the Management. Hence, on 16.07.2004 a memo was issued to the Employee by the Management referring to the above said incident and calling upon him to explain as to why action should not be taken against him.
3(b) On 19.07.2004 at about 3.00 pm, he had brought about 25 persons to the Bank premises to show his protest against the issuance of said memo to him. When all of them wanted to enter the bank premises, to avoid any confrontation, two persons of the group viz., one Kumari Arun and another person were permitted to enter into Bank and allowed to meet Assistant General Manager. When they met the Assistant General Manager, they threatened him by saying that 'if you are acting at the behest of the higher officials, name them, whether in Mumbai, Delhi, Calcutta, Bangalore or Chennai, we will ensure that they do not go back home'. The Workman has also instigated SC/ST Employees' Welfare Association and arranged for pasting (Tamil) posters, placing Tamil placards at Adyar Branch as well as many other branches in Chennai, demanding Government of Tamil Nadu to arrest Deputy General Manager of SBI and Assistant General Manager of Adyar Branch, SBI.
3(c) On 02.08.2004 during office hours, the Workman had in his possession a bunch of pamphlets in Tamil, demanding the arrest of Deputy General Manager of Zonal Office, Chennai and Assistant General Manager of the Branch office, and shown the same to the employees of the Bank.
3(d) A separate register was maintained for recording the timing, when the employees enter and leave the office. From the entries made in the said register, it was noticed that on very many occasions, the Workman left the Office during working hours without the permission of the superiors.
3(e) On 21.09.2004, a show cause notice with 11 charges was issued to the Workman, calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. On 04.10.2004, the Workman gave a reply to the said show cause notice. Since it was not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Workman was asked to appear for the enquiry. In the enquiry, eight witnesses were examined and 32 documents were pro
