Allahabad High Court
Bank Of India Thru. Chairman And ... vs Central Govt. Industrial ... on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19385 of 2018
Petitioner :- Bank Of India Thru. Chairman And Managing Director And Ors.
Respondent :- Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court Lko Andanr
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,Akhil Pratap Singh,Anurag Srivastava
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Srivastava, who appears for the respondents.
The present petition has been filed challenging the award dated 27.11.2017 whereby the dismissal of the respondent no.3 has been held to be bad in law and it has been directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.
The facts, in brief, are that the respondent no.3 was employed with the petitioner bank and on account of alleged misconduct of serious nature, was served with a charge-sheet dated 22.09.2009 and an inquiry officer was also appointed. The respondent no.3 filed his reply to the said charge-sheet and denied the allegations. However, the inquiry officer submitted its report on 12.04.2010. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 was served with a show cause notice and after considering the submissions, an order came to be passed on 24.06.2010 directing the dismissal of the respondent no.3 from the Bank. The respondent no.3 preferred an appeal against the said order dated 24.06.2010 which too was dismissed on 16.08.2010.
Aggrieved against the said two orders, the respondent no.3 raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act and in terms of the power conferred under the Industrial Disputes Act, a reference was drawn. The Tribunal after exchange of the pleadings framed two preliminary issues being, whether the domestic inquiry against the respondent no.3 were fair and proper and whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse. On the said two preliminary issues, the Industrial Tribunal passed an order dated 24.01.2017 deciding the same against the Bank and holding that the inquiry held against the respondent no.3 was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner- bank initially preferred a writ petition challenging the order dated 24.01.2017 before this court, however during the pendency of the said writ petition, the impugned award dated 12.05.2018 was passed, as such, the writ petition filed challenging the order dated 24.01.2017 was withdrawn with the liberty to challenge the final award dated 12.05.2018.
A perusal of the award impugned reveals that the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 11-A proceeded to hold vide an order dated 24.01.2017 that the inquiry held by the management was improper and granted the management opportunity to adduce the evidence before the Tribunal. The impugned award indicates that despite various opportunities, the management did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal, in fact the respondent no.3 deposed on oath before the Tribunal and he was cross examined too. The Tribunal based upon the said conduct of the management came to the conclusion that there was no cogent or relevant evidence available by the management after the disposal of the preliminary issues on 24.01.2017, as such, proceeded to hold that the dismissal of the respondent no.3 is bad in law and directed the reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
The counsel for the petitioner argues that the inquiry by the bank was in accordance with law and despite repeated opportunities, the respondent no.3 choose not to appear and there was sufficient material on record to hold that the respondent no.3 was evading arguments during the inquiry. In the light of the said submissions, he argues that the award of the Tribunal is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
The counsel for the respondent no.3, on the other hand, argues that in the present petition, the order dated 24.01.2017 is not under challenge and it is also a fact that the management did not adduce any evidence before the Tribunal after the passing of order dated 24.01.2017, thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the management to argue that the inquiry held by the bank was in accordance with law. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer labour Court decided on 04.12.1998 in Appeal (Civil) No.6079 of 1998 wherein the Supreme Court analyze the scope of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also places reliance on the judgment in the case of State Bank of India vs. R.K. Jain and Ors. (1971) 2 LLJ 559 and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 LLJ 180 wherein it has been held that the Tribunal is well within its right to permit the management to adduce evidence before itself. He thus, argues that once the bank has failed to adduce any evidence, the natural consequence was followed by the Tribunal and no error can be found in the same, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have perused the award which shows that by means of an earlier order dated 24.01.2017, the Tribunal has held that the inquiry against the respondent no.3 was bad in law and permitted the management to adduce evidence before itself with regard to the charges levelled. It is also not disputed that no evidence was led before the Tribunal in terms of the liberty so granted by the Tribunal.
Thus, the bank having failed to challenge the order dated 24.01.2017 before this Court coupled with the fact that Bank has not led any evidence before the Tribunal, no fault can be found in the order of the Tribunal, impugned in the present petition.
The writ petition lacks merit is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.5.2022
VNP/-
