Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Shail Jain, J
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3643 of 2003

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, SC for SBI with Mr. Akhsit Kapur, Ms. Riya Sood, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Dinesh Kothari, Mr. B.S. Randhawa, Advs. for R-2

Review jurisdiction is limited to patent errors on the face of record; non-adjudication of a plea regarding opportunity to lead additional evidence does not constitute such an error, especially when the merits were otherwise decided and the workman’s death makes remand impractical.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reference to Labour Court - Discharge from service - Review jurisdiction - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - Error apparent on face of record - The scope of review is confined to patent and self-evident mistakes; it cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. A mere possibility of two views or non-adjudication of a particular legal plea does not constitute an error apparent unless the mistake is manifest without lengthy reasoning. (Paras 11-14, 16-18)

(B) Right of management to lead additional evidence after domestic enquiry is held defective - The right is not automatic; it requires a specific request at the appropriate stage and must be pursued before closure of proceedings. Whether such request was made and whether the Labour Court erred are questions of fact requiring detailed examination and cannot be adjudicated in review. (Paras 24-25)

(C) Principles of finality and substantial justice - When the workman has died during the pendency of the litigation and the dispute is over three decades old, reopening the matter on a procedural ground would unsettle crystallized rights and defeat justice. (Paras 29-31)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner/management had discharged the respondent/workman after a departmental enquiry. The Labour Court held the enquiry defective and the discharge illegal, directing reinstatement with full back wages. The management challenged the award by way of a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. The management then filed a review petition contending that the judgment did not adjudicate the plea that the Labour Court ought to have granted an opportunity to lead additional evidence after holding the enquiry defective. The workman had expired during the pendency of the writ.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the impugned judgment had examined the evidentiary record and the Labour Court’s findings on merits, including the unreliability of the handwriting expert. The alleged omission to deal with the plea regarding additional evidence did not amount to an error apparent on the face of record. Moreover, the right to lead additional evidence was conditional and required factual appreciation unsuitable for review. The death of the workman rendered a remand impracticable and against principles of finality.

Issues: (i) Whether the review petition disclosed an error apparent on the face of record? (ii) Whether the management had an automatic right to lead additional evidence after the domestic enquiry was held defective? (iii) Whether non-consideration of a specific legal plea constitutes a ground for review?

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors that are self-evident and manifest. Non-adjudication of a legal contention, even if erroneous, does not per se warrant review unless the error is patent. The management’s right to lead fresh evidence is not absolute and depends on the procedural conduct before the Labour Court, which cannot be relitigated in review. Additionally, the passage of time and the death of the workman militate against granting any relief in review. Result : Review petition dismissed. (Para 34)

JUDGMENT

SHAIL JAIN, J

REVIEW PET. 211/2023

1. The present Review Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Management i.e. State Bank of India seeking review of the judgment dated 02.06.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 3643/2003, whereby the writ petition preferred by the Petitioner challenging the Award dated 04.02.2003 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in I.D. No. 143/1997 came to be dismissed.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Review Petition are enumerated herein under:

A. The Respondent/Workman Shri S.K. Taparia joined the services of the Petitioner Bank in August 1974 as a Clerk on permanent basis at Sadulsahar Branch, Rajasthan and was subsequently transferred to various branches including Hapur Branch.

B. The Respondent/Workman was placed under suspension with effect from 28.12.1989 on allegations of financial irregularities and misconduct. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was served upon him alleging inter alia that he had operated fictitious accounts, engaged in business transactions by forging signatures of customers, negotiated instruments beyond his known sources of income and maintained heavy personal transactions disproportionate to his income.

C. A departmental enquiry was conducted which concluded with the submission of an enquiry report dated 27.04.1993, wherein certain charges were held proved while several other charges were held not proved.

D. The Disciplinary Authority, while concurring with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on some charges, disagreed with the findings relating to the charges held not proved and issued a tentative decision dated 18.04.1994 proposing the punishment of discharge from service and furnished reasons for disagreement to the workman for submitting his response.

E. The Respondent/Workman submitted his reply dated 29.06.1994 and was also granted an opportunity of personal hearing on 13.08.1994. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed a final order dated 26.10.1994 discharging the Respondent/Workman from service.

F. The departmental appeal preferred by the Respondent/Workman against the order of discharge was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.04.1995, thereby affirming the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

G. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent No. 2 raised an Industrial dispute and the appropriate Government referred the said dispute to the learned Industrial Tribunal vide Order No. L-12012/210/96-L.R. (B) dated 18.09.1997, with the following terms of reference:

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in discharging the services of Shri S.K Taparia, Ex- Clerk w.e.f 2.11.94 is just and legal? If not, to what relief he is entitled and from what date?

H. Before the learned Tribunal, the Respondent No.2/Workman challenged the disciplinary proceedings on the grounds of bias, violation of principles of natural justice and insufficiency of evidence, whereas the Petitioner/Management justified the disciplinary action and contended that the charges stood duly proved in the departmental enquiry. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.

I. Upon adjudication of the dispute, the learned Tribunal passed the Award dated 04.02.2003, holding the punishment of discharge to be illegal and unjustified and directing reinstatement of the Respondent/Workman with continuity of service, full back wages along with 9% interest and consequential benefits.

J. The Petitioner/Management thereafter instituted W.P.(C) 3643/2003 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the said Award.

K. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondent/Workman expired and his legal heirs were substituted on record. This Court, by judgment dated 02.06.2023, declined to interfere with the Award and directed the Petitioner/Management to compute and release the financial benefits payable to the Respondent/Workman as if he had remained in continuous service t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIShail Jain, JState Bank of India – AppellantVersusPresiding Officer – RespondentW.P.(C) 3643 of 2003

Review jurisdiction is limited to patent errors on the face of record; non-adjudication of a plea regarding opportunity to lead additional evidence does not constitute such an error, especially when the merits were otherwise decided and the workman’s death makes remand impractical.

Cases Referred (9)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Shail Jain, J
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3643 of 2003