Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. TAMILVANAN & D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, JJ.
M. Gowrishankar - Appellant in all the appeals
Vs.
The Deputy General Manager (SME), State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Circle Top House & Ors. - Respondents
W.A.Nos.884 and 885 of 2015 and 116 and 117 of 2016 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2015 in W.A.Nos.884 and 885 of 2015
Decided On : 04-02-2016
For the Appellant in all the appeals : Mr. N.G.R. Prasad.
For Respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.Nos.884/15 and 116/2016 and respondents 2 and 2 in W.A.Nos.885/15 and 117/2016: Mr. G. Masilamani, Senior Counsel, For Mr. G. Anand for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Section 10(1) - Employment of workman - Guilty of misappropriation - Conciliation machinery - Whether action of Management of State Bank of India in imposing punishment of removal from services - While he was working as Sub Staff in Branch during a portrait of was put up in Branch at - learned counsel for appellant in his usual style has contended that appellant was removed from service for putting up portrait of who is architect of Drafting of Constitution of India and action of Bank was solely due to putting up of portrait of and other charges were added in a planned manner to remove the appellant from service of Bank - According to him initiation of very disciplinary proceeding is contrary to and in violation of Circular of the Government of India - Held, As per terms of said title deeds of property belonging to respondent was to be in custody of appellant till entire amount of loan with interest was discharged - While mortgage was still subsisting and an amount of was due from the respondent appellants officers came to know that certain public notices were published in local Newspaper calling upon intending purchasers to make their offers for purchase of the property belonging to respondent which was mortgaged to appellant by deposit of title deeds - On appellants coming to know of same its officers approached the advocate who on behalf of respondent had issued publication - Then they came to know that original title deeds which were supposed to be in deposit of company was in his custody - Obviously because it was stealthily taken away from custody of appellant - Petitions dismissed
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
Since common question has arisen in all these appeals, all the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
The background facts in a nutshell :
2.1. The appellant herein is a last grade servant (Daftry sub staff) in the respondent bank. He belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He rendered 19 years and 6 months of service. He is a member of SBI SC/ST Employees Welfare Association (SEWA).
2.2. While he was working as Sub Staff in the Adyar Branch during 2004, a portrait of Dr. Ambedkar was put up in the Adyar Branch at 3.00 p.m. on 15.07.2004.
2.3. Immediately, the Bank gave a memo on 16.07.2004 to the appellant stating that by placing the portrait of Dr. Ambedkar, the ambience of the hall has been spoiled. This was objected to by various SC/ST Associations, as according to them, it amounts to disrespect to Dr. Ambedkar.
2.4. However, this led to the issuance of a charge memo in No.MBS/101, dated 21.09.2004 to the appellant, containing as many as 11 charges.
2.5. An enquiry was held, wherein, eight persons were examined on the side of the Bank as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and four persons were examined by the workman as D.W.1 to D.W.4, besides examining himself as one of the witnesses as D.W.5. PEX.1 to PEX.32 were marked on the side of the Bank and DEX.2 to DEX.6 (DEX 1 has been withdrawn by the defence) were marked on the side of the workman. The enquiry proceeding runs to 291 pages. The enquiry proceeding is in Tamil.
2.6. The Enquiry Officer gave his findings in his Enquiry Report dated 24.08.2005 holding that the charge Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 were proved and charge No.7 was partly proved, while holding that charge Nos.10 and 11 were not proved.
2.7. Based on the said findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the appellant from service by an order dated 02.12.2005.
2.8. The appellate authority, on appeal, held that Charge Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 were proved and Charge No.7, 10 and 11 were not proved. The appellate authority modified the punishment into one of Removal from service with superannuation benefits, by an order dated 03.04.2006.
2.9. Since the conciliatory efforts before the conciliation machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act') failed, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India made a reference on 04.12.2006 under Section 10(1) of the I.D. Act to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as CGIT ) to adjudicate the following issue :
“Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India in imposing the punishment of removal from services of Sri. M. Gowrishankar with effect from 03.04.2006 for the charges levelled against him is just and proper ? If not to what relief is the applicant entitled to ?”
The CGIT took it up on its file in I.D.No.90 of 2006.
2.10. Before the CGIT, the appellant examined himself as W.W.1 and filed 60 documents, which were marked as Ex.W.1 to Ex.W.60. On the side of the respondent Bank, no witness was examined and no document was marked. Those documents produced before the CGIT relate to the removal of the appellant, including the disciplinary files.
2.11. The CGIT rejected I.D.No.90 of 2006 by the Award dated 15.05.2009.
2.12. The appellant filed W.P.No.21625 of 2009 questioning the aforesaid Award of the CGIT dated 15.05.2009. This Court by an order dated 15.09.2011 in W.P.No.21625 of 2009 set aside the Award of the CGIT dated 15.05.2009 and remanded the matter back to the CGIT for fresh consideration. This Court found that the CGIT failed to exercise the power vested under Section 11-A of I.D. Act and there was no re-appreciation of evidence, that was let-in in the departmental enquiry before holding that the dismissal was justified by the CGIT. It was pointed out that the learned Presiding officer of the CGIT does not know Tamil, while
