Back
2014 Supreme(All) 1757
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
IN THE MATTER OF, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK - Petitioner
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KANPUR (U.P.) AND OTHERS - Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64839 of 2006, decided on 21st November, 2014)
Counsel :
M.K. Gupta, Pankaj Agarwal and Satish Chaturvedi for the Petitioner; S.C., Samit Gopal, A.K. Srivastava, Sumit Gopal, Sumit Goyal and Yogesh Kumar Sinha for the Respondents.
Headnote:Dismissal—Misconduct—Whether proved—Whether domestic enquiry conducted by management was fair—Whether enquiry officer validly appointed—Whether a reasonable opportunity was afforded to workman—In present case, disciplinary authority after considering reply and enquiry report imposed punishment of dismissal without notice—Reference of dispute by Central Government to Central Government Industrial Tribunal—Preliminary issue—Holding that finding of enquiry officer not in accordance with Principles of Natural Justice—Such enquiry held to be vitiated—Writ petition against—Quashing of said order of Tribunal—Remand of matter to Tribunal—Tribunal once again decided issue holding that appointment of enquiry officer was not proper—As no officer of eastern region could have been appointed as an enquiry officer of petitioner bank—Enquiry vitiated in absence of full opportunity to defend himself—Writ petition against—Dismissal of—SLP against—Dismissal of—However, matter referred to Tribunal by Apex Court—Tribunal held that on basis of material on record, no such incident happened as alleged in charge-sheet in bank premises—Workman entitled to reinstatement with back wages—Plea of “No work, No pay” could not be attracted—As workman was not at fault—Merely on ground there are some minor variance regarding time in statement of defence witnesses—Their testimony cannot be discreded—In present case burden to prove misconduct lie on person who makes an averment about its existence—Onus lies on petitioner Bank—Held, High Court not to substitute its judgment over that of Labour Court—While dealing with finding of Labour Court—Tribunal held charge of misconduct against workman not proved—Management indulged in unfair labour practice—Charges against—Workman found frivolous. [Paras 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 34, 37, 44, 46, 47 and 52]
Result; Petition Dismissed.
Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of award dated 14.9.2006 passed by respondent No. 1 in Industrial Dispute No. 81 of 1992.
2. By means of the order dated 7.3.1997, the Tribunal had decided preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper in favour of the workman. It was held that the enquiry officer was not validly appointed and the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and reasonable manner as the workman was not awarded full opportunity to defend himself. vide order dated 28.8.1997 the Tribunal had held that the dismissal of the workman based on charge-sheet dated 27.1.1988 was bad and he was entitled for reinstatement with back wages.
3. Challenging the order dated 7.3.1997 and award dated 28.8.1997, writ petition No. 36051 of 1997 was filed by the petitioner bank which was allowed on 15.7.2003 and the tribunal was directed to decide legality of the dismissal order. It was held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper but the Tribunal had not considered the evidence and material on record which was before the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry, while holding that the workman had not committed any misconduct and the charges were not proved.
4. The tribunal vide award dated 14.9.2006 has held that the action of the management of ANZ Gryndlays Bank Plc. Kanpur(now known as Standard Chartered Bank, Kanpur) in dismissing respondent No. 2 R.C. Srivastava from service with effect from 22.8.1991 was neither justified nor legal. The workman was held entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages, seniority and all consequential benefits attached with the post. Challenging this award, the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are as follows :
In January, 1988 an unfortunate incident took place in which respondent No. 2 workman allegedly manhandled one P.K. Seth, an officer of the bank by hitting him on the face and pulling his tie. According to the petitioner, this incident was preceded by some abusing language used by other employees of the bank. The respondent No. 2 was suspended on 15.1.1988 and a charge-sheet dated 27.1.1988 was issued. The relevant portion of the charge-sheet is reproduced as under
“...The moment Mr. Sharma went out you alongwith the outsider pulled Mr. Seth’s tie from his neck and man-handled and slapped him resulting in his spectacles being broken and he also got a bruise on his left eye.
The above said acts on your part if proved will constitute the following gross misconduct; under paragraph 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.66 which reads as under
19.5(c). Drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank and
(d) Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank and you are hereby charged with the above gross acts of misconduct.”
6. The petitioner appointed N.V. Srinivasan, Personnel Training Officer, Office of the General Manager, Eastern India, as the enquiry officer. Before the enquiry officer, both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 produced their witnesses and other documents in respect of their respective claims. A preliminary objection was raised by respondent No. 2 regarding appointment of the enquiry officer on the ground that under paragraph 19.14 of the Bipartite settlement, the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner bank in India had nominated various officers for holding the departmental enquiry. Office in question is located at Kanpur and it falls within the northern region and any officer of the northern region who has been so nominated, can alone be appointed as the enquiry officer. On merits, respondent No. 2 pleaded that he was not guilty as no such incident took place. The enquriy offic
