Madras High Court
C.Balamurugan vs The Chief Manager/Disciplinary ... on 12 November, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.20352 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD).No.20352 of 2021
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.16993 & 16995 of 2021
C.Balamurugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chief Manager/Disciplinary Authority,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Human Resources Management Department,
Industrial Relations Section,
Regional Office, Anna Nagar,
Madurai-625 020.
2.The Senior Manager/Inquiring Officer,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Bye Pass Road Branch,
Madurai District.
3.The Senior Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
No.66, Cumbum Main Road,
Lakshmipuram-625 523,
Theni District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 28.09.2021
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20352 of 2021
passed by the 1st respondent vide
RO/MDU/IR/DA:CM(GC)/184/81/2021-22 and quash the same as illegal
and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the
service with all backwages and benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28.09.2021
passed by the first respondent vide R.O
RO/MDU/IR/DA:CM(GC)/184/81/2021-22 for a consequential direction
to reinstate the petitioner in the service with all backwages and benefits.
2. The petitioner was working as a clerk in the Indian Overseas
Bank, Theni Branch and on 12.10.2020, he was terminated from service
by the Chief Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Indian Overseas Bank on
the ground of in-subordination, disobedience to the Branch, acted against
the interest of the Bank, misbehaved with the customers and caused
disturbances in the Branch.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20352 of 2021
3. When the writ petition was taken up for admission, Mr.Dhilip
Kumar, learned counsel has raised a preliminary objection on the ground
of maintainability of the petition by referring 11th Bi-partite settlement
dated 11.11.2020. He has also produced the circular issued by the Central
Officers of the Indian Overseas Bank dated 10.02.2021 and referred the
judgment of this Court in the case of P.Pitchamani vs. Manager of Shri
Sachakara Tyres Limited, reported in 2004 (3) CTC 1.
4. As per the Memorandum of settlement, Disciplinary Action
Procedure for workmen between the Indian Overseas Bank's Association
and the workman Unions has been amended in 11th Bi-partite settlement
on 11.11.2020 and as per the Settlement, as against the order passed by
the Disciplinary Authority, the workman is having a right of appeal. The
Appellate Authority is also defined in the Memorandum as follows:
2. Appellate Authority:
a. AGM, Central Office will be the Appellate
Authority.
b. In the event of the disciplinary case
handled by an Executive as DA, the next higher cadre
executive at CO may function as AA.GM(HR) will appoint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20352 of 2021
the AA on case to case basis.
5. Sub-clause (I) to Section 45(c) of Disciplinary Action
Procedure is extracted below:
“an employee who has been awarded the
punishment of dismissal, compulsory discharge or
removal from service by the Disciplinary Authority and
subsequently where the punishment is confirmed by the
Appellate Authority, shall be given an opportunity to seek
reconsideration by the authority higher than the Appellate
Authority”.
6. The Reviewing Authority is also defined in the said
memorandum as follows:
In case of employees, who were awarded punishment of
dismissal/compulsory discharge/removal and subsequently
punishment is confirmed by the Appellate Authority, the
employees now have the provision to submit a representation
for reconsideration. The Authority to review the punishment
may be entrusted to an Executive one layer above the AA. The
appointment of RA will be approved by GM(HR) on case to
case basis.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20352 of 2021
7. In the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent,
the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court held that “In view of what is stated
supra, we hold that
(i) only such violations under I.D. Act, which involve
public duties, are amenable to Writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of Constitution of India;
(ii) dismissals, transfers and other matters concerning
the service conditions of employees governed by I.D. Act, have
to be adjudicated only by the forums created under the said
statute and not otherwise;
(iii) it is needless to mention that the disputes relating to
matters not governed by I.D. Act have to be resolved only by
common law Courts;
(iv) the transfers effected in these cases do not involve
any public duties and involve the disputed questions of fact and
they should be resolved only before the forums under the I.D.
Act;
(v) the appellants/petitioners-employees shall be entitled
to seek for reference by filing application under Section 10 of
the ID Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20352 of 2021
(vi) if any industrial disputes are raised, then the
concerned forums, be it Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal,
shall dispose of the same within four months from the date of
receipt of the reference, after affording opportunity to either
party;
(vii) without prejudice to the contentions of the
appellants/ petitioners-employees, one week time from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order is given to the employees to
join at the transferred places and in respect to such of those
dismissed employees, for non-joining at the transferred places,
the delay is condoned if they join as stipulated above and in
that event, dismissal orders passed against them disappear
automatically; and
(viii) the respondents-managements shall
sympathetically consider the payments of wages/salaries to the
appellants/petitioners-employees so as to maintain the
industrial peace and harmony.”
8. In view of the above judgment, as against the disciplinary
proceedings, the petitioner is having remedy of appeal and review.
Therefore, as per eleventh Bi-partite settlement dated 11.11.2020 and the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in
Pitchaimani's case in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20352 of 2021
Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition
at this stage. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed with a liberty to
the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
12.11.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssb
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that
is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20352 of 2021
To
1. The Chief Manager/Disciplinary Authority,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Human Resources Management Department,
Industrial Relations Section,
Regional Office, Anna Nagar,
Madurai-625 020.
2.The Senior Manager/Inquiring Officer,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Bye Pass Road Branch,
Madurai District.
3.The Senior Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
No.66, Cumbum Main Road,
Lakshmipuram-625 523,
Theni District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.20352 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI.J.,
ssb
Order made in
W.P.(MD).No.20352 of 2021
Dated :
12.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
