The court upheld the dismissal of an employee for serious misconduct involving misappropriation of funds, emphasizing the importance of integrity in banking and the adequacy of evidence in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. The Petitioner, who was working as an Assistant at the Respondent Bank's Ramanathapuram Branch, has filed this writ petition challenging the Award dated 18.09.2015 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 77 of 2014 which was corrected by order in I.A.No.36/2019 on 9.8.2019 wherein and by which he was denied any relief and the I.D. was dismissed.

3. The writ petition was admitted on 20.03.2020. The Respondent entered an appearance and filed a counter affidavit dated 20.01.2022, along with a typed set of documents dated 15.06.2023. The matter was initially heard by a learned Judge, who reserved orders on 14.06.2024. However, on 08.08.2024, the learned Judge reopened the matter for further hearing and directed that it be placed before the appropriate bench handling similar matters. Consequently, the case was listed before this Court. Elaborate arguments were heard and several authorities were cited by both sides.

4. Before approaching the authorities and the labour department, the Petitioner initially filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 5607 of 2005) challenging his dismissal order dated 27.04.2004, which was subsequently confirmed by the appellate authority on 17.08.2004. However, after keeping the matter pending for over six years, he withdrew the writ petition on 06.04.2011 and proceeded to raise an industrial dispute before the Central Government Labour Department. As the Conciliation Officer was unable to facilitate a settlement between the parties, a failure report was submitted to the Central Government. Upon receiving the failure report and considering the matter, the Central Government issued an order of reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the dispute concerning the Petitioner's dismissal, vide Reference No. L-12012/43/2014-IR (B.1) dated 17.09.2014. Pursuant to the reference, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court (CGITLC) took the dispute on file as I.D. No. 77 of 2014 and issued notices to the parties.

5. The Petitioner filed his claim statement dated Nil in 2014, while the Respondent submitted its counter statement dated Nil November 2014. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a rejoinder statement on 15.12.2014. As the Petitioner challenged the validity of the domestic inquiry conducted against him, the Labour Court framed a preliminary issue and proceeded to hear the matter. By an order dated 06.05.2015, the Labour Court rejected the Petitioner's challenge. It held that issues concerning the absence of examination of the complainant and the marking of documents without examining relevant witnesses were matters affecting the merits of the case and could be argued in the main dispute. The Supreme Court has clarified that such preliminary orders need not be challenged immediately and can be contested along with the final award if it goes against a party. In the present case, while the Petitioner has included a copy of the preliminary order at Page 107 of the typed set filed along with the writ petition, the main writ petition does not contain a specific prayer for setting aside the preliminary order.

6. The Management also filed an additional counter statement contending that the Petitioner's dispute against the dismissal order dated 24.07.2004 was raised beyond the prescribed limitation period. They relied on the amendment introduced by Amendment Act 24 of 2010 to the Industrial Disputes Act, specifically Section 2A(2)(iii), which stipulates a three-year limitation period. This amendment was notified by the Central Government with effect from 15.09.2010. In light of the amended provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the dispute was barred by limitation.

7. Before the Labour Court, the Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and submitted 14 documents, marked as Ex.W1 to Ex.W14, in support of his case. On the other hand, the Management did not present any oral evidence, relying instead on the do