The Management must present fresh evidence if a domestic enquiry is deemed unfair, as prior proceedings cannot be relied upon.

JUDGMENT :

(C. Kumarappan, J.)

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 13.09.2021 in W.P. No. 9575 of 2010.)

(Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 13.09.2021 in W.P. No. 19713 of 2010.)

Both the Writ Appeals were filed by the State Bank of India, (hereinafter called "the Bank") against their workman, R. Nagarajan (hereinafter called "the workman"), assailing the common order dated 13.09.2021 passed in W.P. Nos. 9575 and 19718 of 2010.

2. The brief facts which give rise to the instant Writ Appeals are that, the workman joined in the Bank as a Clerk on 07.05.1981. While he was in service, a charge memorandum dated 11.08.1998 was served on him, for the charge of causing serious financial loss and for fabrication of records. After receiving the charge memorandum, he submitted explanation dated 06.11.1998. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Bank proceeded with domestic enquiry. Eventually, the Enquiry Officer submitted report, holding that the charges are proved. As a concomitant, the Bank imposed the punishment of dismissal vide order dated 19.10.2001. Against the above final order, the workman preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, however, the appellate authority also confirmed the punishment of dismissal from service, vide order dated 01.12.2001.

3. Subsequent to the order of dismissal, the workman raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 122 of 2003, before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The Tribunal in its award dated 25.01.2010 modified the punishment, from Dismissal to Compulsory retirement. Assailing the above order, both the Bank, and the workman preferred Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos. 9575 and 19718 of 2010 respectively. Wherein, the learned Single Judge reversed the order of the Tribunal, and ordered for reinstatement of the workman, as a concomitant, the Bank's Writ Petition challenging the modification of punishment was dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, the Bank preferred the instant Writ Appeals.

4. We have heard Mr. Anand Gopalan, the learned counsel for the Bank, and Mr. K.M.Ramesh, the learned Senior Advocate for Mr.V.Ravi, appearing on behalf of the workman.

5. Mr. Anand Gopalan, learned counsel for the Bank, would vehemently contend that, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the order of the Tribunal is without evidence is, inasmuch as contrary to the order of this Court in W.P. Nos. 3785 and 5116 of 2005, in the previous round of litigation, wherein, the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 12.11.2009, had permitted the Bank to let in additional evidence. In the effect, he would contend that the evidence which they had already let in before the domestic enquiry is still to be construed as evidence submitted before the Tribunal. He would also invite our attention about the opportunity provided by the Tribunal to let in additional evidence. The same, according to the learned counsel, demonstrate the entitlement of the Bank to use the evidence, before the Tribunal.

6. It is his further submission that, when the Labour Court found that there is evidence, to arrive at a conclusion, the Writ Court, under judicial review, ought not to have taken a different view. The learned counsel would also contend that, if in any case, this Court is not agreeable with the Bank's contention, he seeks for an order of remand, with an opportunity to let in fresh evidence before the Tribunal. It is in this background, he would pray to allow the Writ Appeals.

7. Per contra, Mr. K.M. Ramesh, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the workman, would contend that the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 3785 and 5116 of 2005 is per incuriam, inasmuch as, the same contravenes the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Neeta Kapilesh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 517.