[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) vs The General Secretary on 8 December, 2025
-1-
WP No. 51262 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO.51262 OF 2019 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
CANARA BANK (E-SYNDICATE BANK)
A NATIONALIZED BANK CONSTITUTED
UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES
(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF
UDNERTAKINGS), ACT,1970,
HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
NO.112, J C ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560 002, AND
CRICLE OFFICE AT MANIPAL,
UDUPI DISTRICT,
REP.BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER(HR)
MR.SHASHIDHAR AITHAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE )
AND:
THE GENERAL SECRETARY,
DHARWAD DISTRICT BANK
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
NO.9, CORPORATION BUILDING,
BROADWAY,
HUBLI-580 020.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VEDA MURTHY M.V., ADVOCATE)
-2-
WP No. 51262 of 2019
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS IN C.R.NO.131 OF 2007 FROM THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BENGALURU AND DECLARE THAT THE REFERENCE MADE BY
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN REFERENCE IN C.R.NO.131 OF
2007 TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, IS ILLEGAL, WITHOUT
JURISDICTION AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.
10 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, AND THE
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SUCH REFERENCE ARE NULL
AND VOID AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.10.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India by the second party-employer, calling
in question the correctness of the judgment and award
dated 26.07.2019, passed by the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru (for
short, `Labour Court'), in case No.CR.131/2007, seeking
for the following reliefs :
"(a) Call for records in C.R.No.131 of 2007
from the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru.
(b) declare that the Reference made by the
Central Government in Reference in C.R.No.131 of
2007 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru, is illegal, without
jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the
proceedings pursuant to such reference are null and
void;
(c) issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction and quash the
Award dated 26.07.2019 in C.R.No.131 of 2007
passed by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru, and
produced as Annexure-`A' and grant such other and
further reliefs deemed fit under the circumstances."
2. The brief facts of the case as per the materials
available on record are that, one H.S.Chandrasekhar
Pandit (hereafter referred to as `an employee'), was
working as a Clerk in Syndicate Bank, Basarikatte Branch,
Shivamogga, at the time of incident. He is a member of
the first party, i.e., Labour Union. The said employee
availed a housing loan at a concessional rate admissible to
an employee of the Bank, for purchasing a site, as well as
putting up construction thereon. The said loan was
granted according to the terms and conditions of the
agreement and it was also agreed between the employee
and the Bank that the amount would be released in stages
based on the progress of the house construction made by
the employee.
3. It is the further case of the Bank that the
employee purchased the site and amount of the said site
was directly paid to the owner of the land. As per the
terms of the agreement, the employee had to furnish a
certificate from the concerned Civil Engineer regarding
progress in the construction. The employee obtained
forged and fabricated certificate of a Civil Engineer-cum-
Contractor and he had also forged the signature of
Manager of Syndicate Bank, Hindupura Branch, stating
regarding progress in the construction of the said building
and with the help of the said forged documents, from time
to time, availed installments of the said loan amount.
But in fact, he had not constructed the building above the
plinth level.
4. The second party-Bank came to know that the said
documents were forged and falsely created just to avail
additional loan/instalments. On enquiry with the
employee, he confessed his guilt and admitted that he had
created the said documents to get the installment of the
loan amount and he has also stated that he utilized the
said amount of loan for performing marriage of his sister
who was depending upon him.
5. The said act of an employee was a grave
misconduct and hence, the Bank proceeded to initiate a
disciplinary enquiry against the employee. The Bank had
issued charge sheet dated 28.12.1990, calling upon the
employee to furnish explanation. It is stated that the
employee did not file any counter or explanation to the
articles of charge supplied to him. Thereafter, Bank
decided to hold a disciplinary enquiry and appointed an
Enquiry Officer.
6. The Enquiry Officer held enquiry and recorded the
evidence of witnesses on behalf of the Bank. The said
witnesses were not cross-examined by the employee and
even he has not participated in the said disciplinary
proceedings. The Enquiry officer after conclusion of the
enquiry, submitted his report dated 04.10.1991 to the
Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority
forwarded the report of Enquiry Officer to the employee
and called upon for his submissions, if any, to the said
report.
7. On the basis of enquiry report, the Disciplinary
Authority issued second show cause notice to the
employee and gave an opportunity of personal hearing in
this regard on 28.11.1991 at 11.00 a.m. in the Zonal
Office of the Bank at Bengaluru. It is alleged by the Bank
that on that day, employee appeared before the
Disciplinary Authority and made his submissions and
during personal hearing, he also admitted the forgery
committed by him and requested for time to clear the
housing loan in full with a commercial rate of interest and
requested for reduction of punishment proposed by the
Disciplinary Authority.
8. The Disciplinary Authority considering the gravity
of the misconduct and also considering the report of the
Enquiry Officer, accepted the same and imposed the
penalty of dismissal from service of the employee from the
Bank with immediate effect by order dated 18.02.1992.
9. The employee preferred an appeal against the said
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority before the
Appellate Authority i.e., General Manager (P), of the
Bank. It is the contention of the Bank that, even before
the Appellate Authority, employee submitted a letter
signed by him dated 05.03.1992, admitting that he had
availed the loan to construct the house, but he had not
constructed beyond the plinth level and utilized the
proceeds of the housing loan to perform the marriage of
his sister. The Appellate Authority by its order dated
07.04.1992, dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the
punishment imposed on the employee.
10. Thereafter, employee through Union, made
representation to the Central Government and the Central
Government considering the representation of the Union,
made reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute
Act, 1947 (for short, `I.D.Act'), to the Labour Court for
considering the reference.
11. The first party-Labour Union denied the contents
of the writ petition. According to the Union, no opportunity
was given to the employee either to appear in person or
prosecute the disciplinary proceedings effectively and even
without proper service of notice on the employee, the
Enquiry Officer proceeded with the matter ex parte and
passed the order. Therefore, the principles of natural
justice were not followed.
12. The records available reveal that the Labour
Court on the basis of the rival contentions of the parties,
framed a preliminary issue as,
" Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by
the second party against the first party was fair and
proper?"
13. The Labour Court after considering the
contentions of both the parties, held that the domestic
enquiry conducted by the second party against the first
party was not fair and proper and permitted the second
party to lead evidence afresh on merits in order to justify
its action taken against the employee. The said order
dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Labour Court, was not
challenged by the second party-Bank, and it had accepted
the said order. Thereafter, the Labour Court recorded the
evidence of the second party-Bank. Before the Labour
Court also, employee did not lead evidence.
14. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties
and assessing the available materials on record, by the
impugned judgment and Award dated 26.07.2019 held
that the second party Bank was unable to prove the
charges levelled against employee and accordingly
accepted the reference and passed the following order:
- 10 -
" The 2nd party is directed to pay monetary
compensation to the 1st party workman Sree H.S.
Chandrasekhar at the rate of 60% of his back wages
from the date of his dismissal from service till the
date he attained superannuation within 6 weeks from
the date of publication of the Award in the official
Gazette, failing which, the amount shall carry future
interest at the rate of 6% per annum. "
The said award passed by the Labour Court was
notified by the Central Government in the Gazette of India
dated 06.08.2019 and the same is challenged in the
present writ petition.
15. We have heard the arguments of both the sides.
16. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the employee himself has given a letter
to the Bank accepting his guilt and also he has stated that
the loan given to him was utilized for the purpose of
performing marriage of his dependent sister and he has
also undertaken that he would repay the said loan
amount. The said materials were available on record.
However, the Labour Court did not consider the said
- 11 -
admissions and erroneously held that the Disciplinary
Authority was unable to prove the charges levelled against
an employee. The admission of guilt is a best evidence and
when an admission is made, there was no need of
examining the witnesses to prove the said contention.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contended that, whatever act done by the employee of
forging of documents, as well as giving false materials to
the employer-Bank, certainly amounts to grave
misconduct. The Bank runs its business on the basis of
trust and faith of the people. If its employee play fraud on
the Bank and misused the money of the Bank, then in all
circumstances, such employee deserves to be punished.
Hence, punishment given by the Disciplinary Authority was
just and proper. The Labour Court did not consider these
facts and erroneously allowed the reference. The said
findings of the Labour Court is erroneous and hence, prays
to set aside the same.
- 12 -
18. The learned counsel for the Union vehemently
contended that, in any judicial proceedings or quasi-
judicial proceedings, following the principles of natural
justice is must. The Bank has not produced any piece of
material to prove that it had served the copy of charge
sheet on the employee and it had also not produced any
materials to show that notice of enquiry alleged to be
issued by the Enquiry Officer was served on the employee.
It was as good as an ex parte enquiry conducted by the
Enquiry Officer and he submitted enquiry report to the
Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority also
accepted it without enquiring the employee and passed
order of dismissal. The employee did not manipulate any
records and there were no materials before the Labour
Court that he had forged the signature of Contractor/Civil
Engineer and Manager of the Bank of Hindupura Branch.
If there were any such materials, the Bank ought to have
produced the same before the Labour Court. The Labour
Court in its earlier order held that enquiry conducted by
the Bank was not fair and proper and that order was
- 13 -
accepted by the Bank. When such an order was accepted
and not challenged, it is as good as the entire enquiry
proceedings were not in accordance with law. In view of
the same, the alleged pleading guilty by the employee
also was not proved. The Labour Court on the basis of
materials placed on record, rightly held that the charges
levelled against employee were not proved.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent further
argued that, it is pertinent to note that entire file said to
be maintained by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary
Authority were not at all placed before the Labour Court
and that was noticed in one of its order by the Labour
Court. The contentions of the Bank that the said entire file
was misplaced while shifting its office is not believable.
Just to victimize an employee, false materials were
created by the Bank and he was illegally dismissed from
the service. The said employee is suffering from severe
diseases/ailment, including hemiparesis. He is penniless
and aged about 75 years as of now. It is also contented
that he lost his son and therefore, he filed an application
- 14 -
for release of the amount deposited by the Bank and for
that also, the Bank did not agree. The Labour Court has
rightly accepted the reference and passed the impugned
order. There is no illegality in the said findings.
20. The learned counsel for the respondent further
stated that in this writ petition, this Court cannot
re-appreciate the evidence. It was to consider whether the
findings of the Tribunal is proper and in accordance with
law. Therefore, there are no materials placed on record by
the Bank to show that the procedures followed by the
Labour Court is not in accordance with the law or the
findings given by the Labour Court is not in accordance
with the law. Therefore, prayed to dismiss writ petition.
21. It is not in dispute that after hearing both the
parties the Labour Court held that the enquiry was not
proper and fair and it was against the principles of natural
justice, therefore, permitted the Bank/second party to lead
evidence. That order was not challenged by the Bank and
it has accepted that enquiry done by it against its
- 15 -
employee was not fair and proper. Thereafter, the second
party-Bank had led the evidence before the Labour Court
and produced the materials.
22. In the impugned judgment/award, the Labour
Court has observed that the Bank had not produced any
materials, records, or original documents or file pertaining
to the enquiry proceedings held against an employee. This
fact is also fatal to the enquiry proceedings. The
contention of the Bank was not accepted by the Labour
Court that the records pertaining to this case specifically
was misplaced while shifting its office. It is also pertinent
to note that, without the original documents, one of the
Manager of the Bank/responsible officer of the Bank, has
endorsed on the xerox copy as a `true copy' and there
was no explanation in this regard by the Bank before the
Labour Court.
23. The main allegation against the employee was
that he created the documents and forged the signature of
the Contractor, as well as Manager of the Syndicate Bank,
- 16 -
Hindupura Branch, and produced them before the Bank for
release of installments of the loan without making any
progress in the construction of the building. The employee
had availed special kind of loan, but not raised the
construction above the plinth level and thereby he played
fraud on the Bank. When a fraud is alleged against an
employee, it is the duty of the Bank to produce sufficient
materials to prove that fraud. The enquiry proceeding is
nothing, but a quasi-criminal proceedings and it is the
bounden duty of the Management of the Bank to prove the
guilt of the delinquent employee by placing sufficient
materials. Even where admission of guilt is alleged, the
employer shall produce relevant documents in this regard
containing admission and shall prove them before the
Labour Court.
24. The Bank had not produced the said forged
documents before the Labour Court and it had not
examined the concerned Engineer or the Manager of the
Hindupura branch of Syndicate Bank to prove that they
had not signed on the said documents. It is not reported
- 17 -
as to whether such persons really exist or are fictitious.
The Bank had not examined the Manager of the Bank of
Hindupura branch, to prove that he had not issued the
said letter and it was a created document by the
employee. Therefore, the Labour Court rightly held that
the said allegation of creation or forging of signature of a
Civil Contractor, as well as a Manager of the Bank, was not
proved. There is no reason to hold that the said finding of
the Tribunal is illegal or perverse.
25. The repeated contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the employee himself has pleaded
guilty and he has stated that he has misused the amount
of loan given for construction of the building and diverted
it to perform the marriage of his dependent sister. This
fact was denied by the employee while conducting the
litigation before the Labour Court. To prove the alleged
admission, no relevant witnesses were examined and no
documents were produced. Labour Court was also not
persuaded to believe the said contention. Under these
circumstances, the contention of the Bank that since
- 18 -
employee pleaded guilty and accepted his mistakes,
hence, it had not examined any other witnesses, is not
tenable.
26. The second party-Bank contended that the
employee played fraud on the Bank. As discussed above,
the said fraud was not proved before the Labour Court.
According to the Bank, whenever any progress is
made in the construction and before release of the
installment of a loan to the borrower, it was a duty of the
Manager of the Bank to physically verify the said building
and thereafter, release the amount. If really the Manager
had performed his part of the duty, then he would have
prevented the alleged fraud of the employee. It clearly
shows that the said Manager had not performed his duty
and the Bank has not taken cognizance of the said
mistake. There is no explanation in this regard by the
Bank. It leads to a doubt alleged fraud played by the
employee.
- 19 -
27. It was repeatedly submitted by the learned
counsel for the first party-Union that the Bank had
released the amount for construction of the building and it
had been deducting installments/EMI from the salary of
the employee. After dismissing him from the service, the
Bank has taken possession of the land and building and
auctioned it and recovered its dues. There was no financial
loss to the Bank from the alleged diversion of the funds by
the employee. Under these circumstances, the Labour
Court was justified in making award in favour of workman.
28. During the course of the arguments, the learned
counsel for petitioner had produced the copy of the
`bipartite agreement' As per the said agreement, the
incident alleged in the present case does not come within
the category of `major misconduct'.
29. Looking at all the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Labour Court has rightly held that Bank had
failed to prove the charges levelled against its employee
i.e., Mr.H.S.Chandrasekhar Pandit and we do not find any
- 20 -
reason to interfere in the said findings. The procedures
followed by the Labour Court are in accordance with the
law and there is no illegality in the said procedures
followed by the Labour Court. The employee is victimised
by the concerned without collecting materials. In view of
these reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed
with costs.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with
costs.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
bk/
