Deputy General Manager Canara ... vs Presiding Officer Ind.Tribunal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2139 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31320 of 2017
 

 
Petitioner :- Deputy General Manager Canara Bank Circle Office Lucknow Anr
 
Respondent :- Presiding Officer Ind.Tribunal Cum Labour Court Lko And Anr
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Shukla,Alok Kumar Singh,Alok Saxena
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G,Rajesh Kumar Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present petition has been filed challenging the award dated 05.05.2017 passed by respondent no.1/CGIT, Lucknow whereby the petitioners have been directed to reinstate the workman with all the back wages and consequential benefits within ten weeks and a further direction has been issued that in the event the amount is not paid, the same shall carry interest @ 6%.

The facts, in brief, are that one Shri Ram Gobind was posted as a Computer Terminal Operator at Gorakhpur Branch of the Bank and where on account of certain irregularities was served with a charge sheet dated 04.12.2008. The said charge sheet led to an inquiry and finally a punishment order dated 22.09.2009. The said workman preferred a departmental appeal before the appellate authority of the Bank, which too was rejected on 28.06.2010. Aggrieved against the said orders, the workman filed a claim application before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Lucknow to which the petitioner Bank filed a detailed reply. On failing of conciliation, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) and a detailed claim statement was filed by the workman. The tribunal proceeded to hear the matter and initially framed preliminary issues with regard to the fairness of the domestic inquiry held by the Bank against the workman. The CGIT vide order dated 07.04.2015 decided the issue against the Bank and held that the inquiry was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Alongwith the said order, the Presiding Officer afforded the opportunity to the Bank to prove charges levelled against the workman before the tribunal. Copy of the said order is Annexure - 13 to the writ petition.

In pursuance to the said direction, the petitioner Bank filed the documents before the tribunal and also the affidavits of two persons, who deposed in favour of the Bank. The said two documents are annexed as Annexue - 15 to the writ petition.

It also bears from record that the said witnesses of Bank were permitted to be cross-examined by the respondent. After the affidavits and the cross-examination, the tribunal decided the issue. While deciding the said issue, the tribunal was of the view that the most important piece of evidence in support of the charges by the Bank could have been the deposit slips dated 13.06.2008 and 14.06.2008, which have not been produced in original, as such, the tribunal proceeded to set aside the punishment order of compulsory retirement imposed on Shri Ram Gobind on 22.09.2009 and directed the Bank to reinstate the workman with all the back wages. The said order is under challenge in the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that after holding that the inquiry held by the Bank was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice vide order dated 07.04.2015, the tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to direct the Bank to file necessary evidences to establish the charge levelled against the petitioner and the Bank in discharge of the said had filed affidavits of the two witnesses alongwith the documents. The tribunal permitted the said witnesses to be cross-examined, however, there is no iota of mention of the statement given by the witnesses or the effect of the cross-examination of the said witnesses.

Learned counsel argues that the specific charge against the employee concerned was that while acting as a cashier with the Bank, the Bank was informed by two customers that the cash deposited by them on 02.06.2008 has not been accounted for. They also claimed that the cash receipt counterfoils were available with them and were also placed on record. The said two customers claimed that they had deposited Rs.24,000/- and Rs.38,500/- in their respective accounts, which were not credited to their accounts and specific complaints to that effect were made with the Bank by the said customers. The other charge against the erring workman was that the amount of Rs.38,500/- was deposited in the customers account on 13.06.2008, the amount of Rs.11,500/- was deposited in the customers account on 13.06.2008 and an amount of Rs.12,500/- was deposited in the customers account on 14.06.2008 by the workman and his son after about 11 days.

In the light of the said, he argues that mainly the charges against the workman were twofold: firstly being that despite in-charge of the cash, he collected the money but did not deposit the same and secondly that to overcome his guilt, he deposited the said amount after about 11 - 12 days. He argues that the management witnesses had specifically deposed against the workman and in the cross-examination, which is on record, the management witnesses could not be discredited. He argues that this aspect has not even been considered by the tribunal in the impugned judgment. He further argues that the tribunal was swayed by the fact that the Bank did not produce the original deposit slips dated 13.06.2008 and 14.06.2008, which could have clearly establish the guilt of the workman.

It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that even if the Bank was found wanting in production of the original deposit slips, the first limb of the charge that the workman collected the money on 02.06.2008 but did not credit the same in the account of the customers was itself good enough to hold that the workman was not entitled to any benefit. In the light of the said, he argues that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned counsel for the respondent argues that the deposition made by the management witnesses were not exhibited in terms of the rules and admittedly the original deposit slips dated 13.06.2008 and 14.06.2008 were not produced by the Bank, which could have clinched the issue in favour of the Bank. He, thus, argues that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

On perusal of the award impugned in the present writ petition, it bears that although the tribunal permitted the petitioner to adduce the evidence and also allowed the cross-examination, however, there is no discussion of the evidence adduced before him or the effect of the cross-examination on the said evidence. The tribunal merely decided the issue on the ground that the original deposit slips had not been produced. The tribunal did not even consider the effect of the charge by the Bank that on 02.06.2008, the workman being the cashier accepted the cash but did not credit the same to the accounts of the customers.

There being no discussion whatsoever of the evidence led before the tribunal or the gravity of the deposition after considering the cross-examination, this Court cannot uphold the award dated 05.05.2017. Accordingly, the award dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure - 1) is set aside.

As this Court cannot appreciate the evidence in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the matter is remanded before CGIT, Lucknow to pass fresh orders after considering the nature of the charges levelled against the workman and after appreciating the evidence led by the Bank before the tribunal and the effect of cross-examination.

The parties shall be free to agitate all the issues before the tribunal, however, they would not be permitted to lead any fresh evidence at this stage.

The tribunal shall endeavour to pass a decision with all expedition.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

Order Date :- 6.5.2022

nishant