Ashok Kumar K. vs The Deputy Chief Labour ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 299 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.28423 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONER:

               ASHOK KUMAR K., AGED 50 YEARS
               SON OF K.KUTTAN, SINGLE WINDOW OPERATOR A, CANARA
               BANK, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, SPENCER BUILDING,
               STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039, RESIDING AT AS
               BHAVAN, MANALI, NEAR PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
               DHANUVACHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695503.

               SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
               SRI.K.V.GEORGE
               SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
               SRI.P.S.GIREESH
               SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)
               OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER
               (CENTRAL), KENDRIYASHRAMSADAN, OLIMUGHAL, KAKKANAD,
               KOCHI-682030.

      2        CANARA BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL
               MANAGER, HRM SECTION, CIRCLE OFFICE, CANARA BANK
               BUILDING, MG ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039.

      3        M.LEKSHMI, SINGLE WINDOW OPERATOR A, CANARA BANK, BS
               IC AND IF SECTION, CIRCLE OFFICE, CANARA BANK
               BUILDING, MG ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039.

               SRI M GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR (SC),
               SRI P VIJAYAKUMAR (ASGI)

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.28423 OF 2020(C)

                                   2


                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of January 2021

The petitioner, who is working as a "Single Window

Operator" in the second respondent - Canara Bank, has

approached this Court seeking two reliefs: (a) that his

statutory appeal preferred under the provisions of the Sexual

Harassment of Women at Workplace (PP and R) Act, 2013,

namely Ext.P7, be directed to be disposed of at the earliest by

the first respondent - Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner; and

(b) that the disciplinary action initiated by the second

respondent - Bank against him on the same set of allegations,

which is the subject matter in Ext.P7, be directed to be

deferred.

2. Sri.B.Ashok Shenoy, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that the genesis of the proceedings

against him is in that the third respondent had preferred

Ext.P8 complaint before the General Manager of the Canara

Bank alleging that he had sexually harassed her; and that this

was referred by the Bank to its Internal Enquiry Committee,

which has found certain facts erroneously against him.

Sri.B.Ashok Shenoy submitted that his client has, therefore, WP(C).No.28423 OF 2020(C)

preferred Ext.P7 statutory appeal before the first respondent;

but that in the meanwhile, the Bank has now initiated

disciplinary action against him on the same set of allegations.

Sri.B.Ashok Shenoy, therefore, prays that Ext.P7 be directed

to be taken up and disposed of by the first respondent within a

time frame and the Bank be directed not to proceed with

disciplinary action against his client until such time as a

decision is taken thereon by the said respondent.

3. Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General

appearing for the first respondent, submitted that Ext.P7

appeal is next listed to 13.01.2021 and that the said

respondent will be in a position to dispose of the same within

a period of one month thereafter, if both the parties co-

operate. Sri.Vijayakumar then added that, in fact, the first

respondent has also instructed the Bank not to continue with

the disciplinary action against the petitioner until such time as

a decision is taken by him on Ext.P7. He, therefore, prayed

that this writ petition be ordered, allowing the first

respondent to complete the proceedings on Ext.P7 as per law.

4. Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned standing

counsel for the second respondent, submitted that the WP(C).No.28423 OF 2020(C)

contentions of the petitioner impelled in this writ petition are

not tenable because there is absolutely no bar - statutorily or

otherwise - against the Bank initiating or proceeding with

disciplinary action against him on the same set of allegations

which are the subject matter of Ext.P7 statutory appeal. He

submitted that the Bank has only acted bona fide and in

fairness and on the basis of the complaint preferred by the

third respondent and therefore, that this Court may not

interdict the disciplinary action, as prayed for by the

petitioner.

5. I have considered the afore submissions and have also

gone through the materials and documents available on

record.

6. It is indubitable, going by Ext.P2 report of the Internal

Complaints Committee of the Bank, that the allegations

against the petitioner are squarely based on the complaint

preferred by the third respondent, which is available as Ext.P8

on record. It is also without doubt that the Bank is now

proceeding against the petitioner, through a disciplinary

enquiry, on the same set of imputations .

7. Obviously, therefore, when the statutory appeal WP(C).No.28423 OF 2020(C)

against Ext.P2 is pending before the first respondent, I am of

the firm view that the disciplinary action of the Bank cannot

be allowed to continue, particularly when the result of the said

statutory appeal will certainly have the bearing on the enquiry

now proposed by the Bank.

8. That apart, as submitted by Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned

Assistant Solicitor General, it is also the firm opinion of the

first respondent that such disciplinary action be deferred until

such time as he takes a final decision on Ext.P7 statutory

appeal.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and

direct the first respondent - Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner, to dispose of Ext.P7 appeal, after affording

necessary opportunity of being heard to both sides, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than 15.02.2021.

Needless to say, until such time as the final orders are

issued by the first respondent on Ext.P7 and communicated to

the parties, all further action now proposed by the Bank

against the petitioner through Ext.P4 will be deferred;

however, clarifying that they will be at liberty to continue

further proceedings thereon, if it is so found necessary WP(C).No.28423 OF 2020(C)

thereafter.

After I dictated this judgment, Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned

Assistant Solicitor General, prayed that the petitioner and the

third respondent be directed to co-operate fully during the

consideration of the appeal by the first respondent. It is

unnecessary to say that the parties must do so and if they still

refuse full co-operation, the first respondent will certainly be

at liberty to complete the consideration of the statutory appeal

in terms of law, taking note of such circumstances.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

Stu JUDGE WP(C).No.28423 OF 2020(C)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.TCO/HRM/DAC/MMG/EXP/198/2020 DATED 11.3.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 24.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 21.3.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET NO.TCO/HRM/DAC/CS-

W/2/2020 DATED 15.6.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 25.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.TCO/HRM/DAC/DGM/W-112/EO-PO PROC/789/2020 DATED 1.7.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 20.8.2020 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 18.12.2019 SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO GENERAL MANAGER OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 9.1.2020 WRITTEN BY SMT.SUDHAKUMARI ALONG WITH ITS READABLE COPY.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 7.10.2020 FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF REPLICATION DATED 27.10.2020 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 6.9.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, MAHESH KUMAR S.

WP(C).No.28423 OF 2020(C)

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY DATED 2.11.2020 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.