The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court and the labour court and upheld the dismissal of service awarded to a bank employee for drunkenness within the premises of the bank and for manhandling, assaulting the senior officers and also hurling abuses at the management.
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka in the case titled Standard Chartered Bank v. R. C. Srivastava gives their opinion on jurisdiction of Labour Court under section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
Facts of the Case:
The respondentworkman was an employee of the appellantBank and for the alleged delinquency which he had committed on 12th January, 1988 in discharge of his duties, a chargesheet was served upon the respondent workman with the allegation of drunkenness within the premises of the appellantBank and for manhandling and assaulting the senior officers and also hurling abuses at the management. The enquiry officer after holding an enquiry in terms of the Bipartite Settlement and after due compliance of the principles of natural justice held the charges proved against the delinquent respondent and the disciplinary authority after due compliance, confirmed the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and punished him with the penalty of dismissal from service.
Labour Court’s observation and Judgment:
The Industrial Tribunal, revisited the record of enquiry and apprised the statement of the management witnesses and recorded a finding that the Bank management has “miserably failed” to establish the charges levelled against the respondent-workman and held the charges not being proved and in consequence, hence, set aside the order of dismissal from service and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent-workman in service with full back wages, seniority and all the consequential benefits.
High Court’s observation and Judgment:
The High Court by its impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Tribunal.
Submissions of the Appellant:
The Appellant has submitted that after the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper, the Tribunal has a limited scope to interfere with the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry and unless the finding is perverse and not supported by a piece of evidence, it was not open for the tribunal to interfere within the scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Submissions of the Respondent:
The respondent has submitted that there was no evidence on record as appreciated by the Tribunal in the first place, in arriving to the conclusion that such alleged incident in reference to which domestic enquiry was held had never occurred and the action was taken against him because he was an active member of a union and this was the circuitous route adopted by the appellant to eliminate the respondent to curb his trade union activities in the bank and the only recourse available was to make such uncalled for baseless allegations which certainly on being tested on the floor of judicial review by the Tribunal do not hold good and rightly interfered by the Tribunal and has been confirmed by the High Court.
Supreme Court’s observation and Judgment:
The Supreme Court after considering submissions of the parties held that the Tribunal after re appraisal of the record of domestic enquiry held it to be fair and proper, has a very limited scope to interfere in the domestic enquiry to the extent as to whether there is any apparent perversity in the finding of fact which has been recorded by the enquiry officer in his report of enquiry obviously, based on the evidence recorded during the course of enquiry and as to whether the compliance of the Bipartite Settlement which provides the procedure of holding enquiry is violated or the punishment levelled against the workman commensurate with the nature of allegation proved against him and if it is grossly disproportionate, the tribunal will always be justified to interfere by invoking its statutory power under Section 11A of the Act 1947.
“Tribunal has converted itself into a Court of Appeal as an appellate authority and has exceeded its jurisdiction while appreciating the finding recorded in the course of domestic enquiry and tested on the broad principles of charge to be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is a test in the criminal justice system and has completely forgotten the fact that the domestic enquiry is to be tested on the principles of preponderance of probabilities and if a piece of evidence is on record which could support the charge which has been levelled against the delinquent unless it is per se unsustainable or perverse, ordinarily is not to be interfered by the Tribunal, more so when the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and proper.”
The Top Court also held that Tribunal’s decision should not be based on mere hypothesis.
" The decision of the Labour Court should not be based on mere hypothesis. It cannot overturn the decision of the management on ipse dixit. Its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act 1947 although is a wide one but it must be judiciously exercised.”
Looking to the peculiar facts of this case where the respondentworkman had been paid Rs.57,16,517.72 and had attained the age of superannuation on 31st January, 2012, stay was granted by this Court in reference to back wages by order 27th February, 2015, while upholding the order of penalty of dismissal from service dated 22nd August, 1991 passed by the authority in the domestic enquiry, Court consider it appropriate to observe that no recovery shall be made in reference to the payment which has been made over to the workman in the interregnum period.
Case Details:
Case Titled: Standard Chartered Bank v. R. C. Srivastava
Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka
Read Judgment
Share this Document :Picture Source :
