Delhi High Court
Corporation Bank And Anr. vs Presidingf Officer,Cgit And Anr. on 31 October, 2014
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 31st October, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 4264/2014
CORPORATION BANK AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Ms.Rama Arora, Advocate.
Versus
PRESIDINGF OFFICER,CGIT AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 4264/2014
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the
Office Order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the respondent No.1, i.e.,
Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I,
Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
2. In para 19 of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal recorded
that the claimant/respondent No.2 projected that his appeal dated
25.08.2010 was not considered by the Appellate Authority. Instead of
appreciating contents of his appeal, his letter dated 05.01.2011 was
described as his appeal and discarded on technicalities, claiming that it
was preferred beyond 45 days of the final order. Thus, his right of appeal
was not accorded to him.
3. It is further recorded that these facts are not disputed. Thus, vide
the aforesaid order, the Presiding Officer opined that it is not a matter of
dispute that appeal preferred by the claimant was discarded on
technicalities by highlighting that the same was preferred beyond
limitation of 45 days from the order imposing penalty upon him. His
appeal dated 25.08.2010 was not disposed of.
4. Thus, the inquiry found to be tainted.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that
respondent No.2/workman did not file any appeal dated 25.08.2010 and
filed only letter dated 05.01.2011 which was rejected by the petitioners
after consideration.
6. On perusal of the aforesaid letter dated 05.01.2011 it reveals that
subject matter of the said letter is as under:-
"Appeal against the punishment of Discharge from the Service of
the Bank"
And in the said appeal, the respondent No.2/workman has taken the
grounds that the alleged charges were proved violating all norms of
equity, justice, fair play and natural justice. No cogent or valid reasons
were substantiated in the draconian judgement by Enquiry Officer,
Disciplinary Authority, in awarding this capital punishment to him and
his family. Accordingly, respondent No.2 prayed that lenient view be
taken on compassionate ground and he be reinstated in service.
7. Vide order dated 29.08.2011, Senior Manager of the petitioners
observed that since appeal dated 05.01.2011 was delayed by 45 days
from the date of receipt of order of the Disciplinary Authority, imposing
the punishment, accordingly, the same was rejected.
8. The respondent No.2/workman approached the Conciliation
Officer and the Labour Court under the Welfare Legislation. The
petitioners ought to have considered the appeal dated 05.01.2011 on
merits even if the appeal dated 25.08.2010 was not on record by dealing
with all the issues raised therein by the respondent No.2.
9. In view of the above noted facts, I do not find any discrepancy in
the order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
CM No. 8579/2014
With the dismissal of the instant petition, this application has
become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed.
SURESH KAIT
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 31, 2014
sb
