Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARUN TANDON
CANARA BANK, LUCKNOW - Appellant
Versus
P. O. , CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 13908 Of 1992
Decided On : 07/12/2004
Bank Fraud - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10, Section 11-A - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Section 11-A, which empowers the Tribunal to reappraise the evidence in a domestic enquiry and record its own findings. The court also highlighted the limitations on the powers of the Tribunal and the scope of its jurisdiction in such matters.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a bank employee, Vijay Kumar Gupta, who was dismissed from service due to his alleged involvement in a bank fraud. The Labour Court decided in favor of the employee, directing reinstatement with full back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to re-examine the evidence and record its own findings, as per the legal provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to re-examine evidence and the validity of the findings recorded during the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court had the power to reappraise the evidence in a domestic enquiry and record its own findings, as per the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court provided specific observations regarding the entitlement of the employee and the bank's liability.
ARUN TANDON, J.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri J. N. Tewari, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. P. Agrawal, senior advocate, assisted by Sri H. N. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent workman and standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.
( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as the bank) against the award of Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur dated December 12, 2001 passed in adjudication Case No. 133 of 1988. By means of the said award the Labour Court has decided the reference dated August 1, 1988 in favour of the workman, Vijay Kumar Gupta, and has held that the punishment imposed upon the employee, namely Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta, dismissal from services is not justified and has directed reinstatement with full back wages.
( 3 ) THE facts relevant for decision of this case are that Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta who was an employee of the Bank and who was working as Special Assistant in Khairagarh Branch of the Bank, was required to work as Incharge of demand Draft Department at Khairagarh branch with effect from July 1, 1980. The Bank drafts bearing No. 850010 dated June 18, 1980 and No. 850099 dated July 4, 1980 of Rs. 50,000. 00 each were presented for collection at Aligarh Branch of the Bank on July 2, 1980 and at Gwalior Branch of the Bank on July 9, 1980 respectively by one and the same person, namely Ram Prakash. Both the above-mentioned Bank Drafts were issued under the signature of Sri T. C. Agrawal who was working as Accountant in Khairagarh branch of the Bank upto June 19, 2000 only. Later on it came to the knowledge of the Bank that the said Bank Drafts were forged and were not issued by the Khairagarh Branch of the bank. The encashment of the aforesaid Bank drafts resulted in the loss of one lac rupees to the Bank.
( 4 ) IN respect of the said incident investigation was started and since at the relevant time Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta was responsible for the custody of the Bank Draft leaves Book containing Leaves Nos. 850001 to 850100, disciplinary proceedings initiated against Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta.
( 5 ) ON November 12, 1980 Sri Vijay kumar Gupta was served with a charge-sheet containing two charges, namely: (a) Fraudulent preparation of the Bank drafts referred to above, and (b) Negligence with the missing of the security papers (draft leaves ).
( 6 ) SRI Vijay Kumar Gupta filed his reply to the said charge- sheet. Sri S. J. Raman was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Opportunity of being heard was afforded to Sri Vijay Kumar gupta during the disciplinary proceedings. Report of hand writing expert was also obtained in the matter and the same was accepted during the enquiry proceedings as the workman did not choose to examine the hand writing expert on the ground that the report of the hand writing expert had already been accepted. The workman also stated in his defence, during the disciplinary proceedings that he had no witness to examine and that he would make his submissions in writing. On behalf of the management three witnesses were examined i. e. (1) Sri Radha Krishna, (2) Sri K. K. Varshney, and (3) Sri V. K. Krishnamurthy. The enquiry officer submitted his report after considering the material evidence on record as also having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the management and the workman. The enquiry officer vide his report dated February 8, 1984 found the charges proved against the petitioner. On receipt of the enquiry report a show cause notice dated february 9, 1984 was issued to the workman to show cause as to why the punishment proposed be not imposed upon him. Sri Vijay kumar Gupta, in response to the aforesaid show cause notice, appeared before the disciplinary authority and was heard. The punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon Sri Vijay Kumar Gupta by the disciplinary authority vide order dated november 14, 1984.
( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the dis
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
