Delhi High Court
State Bank Of India Staff ... vs State Bank Of India, Through Its ... on 3 August, 2004
Author: M B Lokur
Bench: M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioner has challenged an Award dated 16th November, 1981 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in ID No.123/1977.
2. The question referred for adjudication is as follows: -
''Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India Region No.III in depriving Shri Devi Dayal Sharma Cash Coolie at their Landsdown Branch of his service on acceptance of his allegedly forced resignation w.e.f. 17th August, 1974 is justified? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled?''
3. On the basis of the above reference and the pleadings of the parties, the following three issues were framed: -
1. Whether the resignation of the workman was obtained under influence, intoxication and coercion as alleged?
2. Whether the workman has been gainfully employed during the period in dispute?
3. As in the order of reference?
4. The Workman was employed as a Cash Coolie with the Landsdown Branch of the Respondent-Bank. The allegation against him was that he had surreptitiously removed Rs.310/- from a packet while stitching currency notes. When he was questioned about the loss, he admitted his guilt and the currency notes were recovered at his instance. It seems that rather than face a criminal prosecution, the Workman preferred to submit his resignation, which he did on 20th August, 1974. The case put up by the Workman, a is apparent from the issues framed, was that his resignation was obtained by the Respondent-Bank after he was made to consume alcohol and was in an intoxicated state of mind. As such, the resignation was not voluntary but was thrust upon him.
5. The Workman examined only himself and produced a number of documents in support of his case. On the other hand, the Respondent-Bank produced two witnesses, namely, the Manager of the concerned branch of the Bank and the Head Cashier before whom the Workman made his confession.
6. The learned Tribunal noted that no evidence was led that any alcohol was available at the time when the Workman gave his resignation. The question, therefore, of the Workman being under the influence of alcohol at the time when he tendered his resignation was clearly not borne out from the record. This is a finding of fact which ought not to be lightly disturbed. The Tribunal also noted that there was nothing on record to suggest that any witness had any grudge against the Workman or any interest is obtaining his resignation by exercising undue influence or pressure or coercion upon him.
7. The recovery of Rs.310/- at the instance of the Workman and the presence of employees of the Respondent-Bank at the time when the Workman tendered his resignation led the learned Tribunal to disbelieve the version put up by the Workman and instead give credence to the testimony of the Respondent-Bank.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the relevant papers on the file of the case, it appears to me that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal are essentially findings of fact. There is no perversity shown or alleged in the learned Tribunal arriving at these findings. No evidence was led with regard to any alcohol being made available at the time when the Workman tendered his resignation. Therefore, the entire story of the Workman falls to the ground on this basis alone.
9. The second contention raised by learned counsel for the Workman requires me to weigh the evidence on record. This is essentially the function of the learned Tribunal. Nothing has been shown to me to suggest that important evidence was not considered or irrelevant material was taken into account by the learned Tribunal. The evidence on record has been discussed in detail and this shows that the case put up by the Petitioner was not at all tenable. It would be correct to assume, as observed by the learned Tribunal, that the Workman wanted a soft way out of the problem after having been found to have misappropriated some money from the Respondent-Bank. To avoid any complications, the Workman tendered his resignation which was accepted in the normal course.
10. The contentions being urged by learned counsel for the Petitioner are essentially based on findings of fact, which are not required to be disturbed in the absence of any cogent material.
11. I find no error in the impugned Award. The writ petition is dismissed.
