Madras High Court
M.Tamilarasan vs Central Government Industrial ... on 19 February, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 19.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P. NO.8417 OF 2012
W.P. NO.3506 OF 2013
AND
M.P. NO. 1 OF 2013
W.P. NO.8417 OF 2012
M.Tamilarasan .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. Central Government Industrial Tribunal
-cum- Labour Court
Rep. By its Presiding Officer
1st Floor, ‘B’ Wing
26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan
Chennai 600 006.
2. Chief General Manager
State Bank of India
Local Head Office
College Road
Chennai 600 006. .. Respondents
W.P. NO. 3506 OF 2013
The Chief General Manager
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
State Bank of India, Local Head Office
Circle Top House, No.16, College Lane
Chennai 600 006. .. Petitioner
- Vs -
1. Central Government Industrial Tribunal
-cum- Labour Court
Rep. By its Presiding Officer
1st Floor, ‘B’ Wing
26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan
Chennai 600 006.
2. M.Tamilarasan .. Respondents
W.P. No.8417 of 2012 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the
concerned records from the 1st respondent quash the award passed by the 1st
respondent Labour Court in I.D. No.79 of 2009 dated 2.1.2012 insofar as denying
the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, will full backwages and all
other attendant benefits and consequently direct the respondent bank to
reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and
all other attendant benefits.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
W.P. No.3506 of 2013 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st
respondent in I.D. No.79 of 2009 and quash the award dated 2.1.2012.
For Petitioner : Mr. Balan Haridas in WP 8417/12
Mr. Anand Gopalan for
M/s.AGAM Legal in WP 3506/13
For Respondents : Mr. Balan Haridas for R-2 in
WP 3506/13
Mr. Anand Gopalan for
M/s.AGAM Legal in WP 8417/12
COMMON ORDER
Aggrieved by the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in I.D. No.79/09 dated 13.2.2012
modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to one of compulsory
retirement, while the workman had preferred W.P. No.8417/2012 seeking
reinstatement with continuity of service and attached attendant benefits, the
Bank has filed W.P. No.3506/13 questioning the modification of the punishment.
2. The petitioner was working as a clerk in the petitioner bank and during
the course of his work as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Arni Branch, he had indulged in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
unauthorised withdrawal of funds from the SB accounts of various account
holders and misappropriated the money. It is the further allegation against the
workman that between November, 1996 and February, 1997, the workman had
made nine such withdrawals for a total sum of Rs. 1 Lakh. Upon the delinquency
coming to notice, the workman was proceeded with by way of a disciplinary
enquiry by issuance of charge sheet dated 4.8.1998 listing out the various
instances where he had resorted to such unauthorised withdrawal. The enquiry
was conducted in which the workman also participated and report was filed by
the enquiry officer holding the charges proved and after obtaining his
explanation, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from
service on the workman. The workman challenged the punishment by way of
appeal, which was also dismissed. The punishment was also questioned by the
workman by filing W.P. No.17303/2012 before this Court, which was also
disposed of on 26.7.2004.
3. Thereafter, the workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred
for adjudication to the Tribunal, which was numbered as I.D. No.79/2009. Before
the Tribunal, while the workman and the bank did not adduce any oral evidence,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
however, on the side of the workman, Exs.W-1 to W-10 were marked and on the
side of the bank, Exs.M-1 to M-7 were marked. On the basis of the documentary
evidence, the Tribunal modified the punishment imposed on the petitioner, as
stated supra, leading to the filing of the present writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that the order of
the Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to law. It is the further submission of the
learned counsel that M.W.s 1 to 3, who were examined at the domestic were not
allowed to be cross examined and in such a background, the Tribunal ought to
have doubted the fairness of the enquiry and should have drawn an adverse
inference with regard to the proof as against the workman.
5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the Tribunal,
without proper materials, has held that the workman had not cooperated with
the enquiry and was delaying the enquiry inspite of opportunity given for cross
examination, is wholly erroneous and flawed on the materials available on record
though it was demonstrated before the Tribunal that the enquiry was conducted
fairly and properly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that there is a delay
of 1 ½ years in the issuance of charge memo and that being the case, the enquiry
officer did not give the workman sufficient opportunity to defend the charges and
held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of
the enquiry. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that there are no
materials to prove the charges levelled against the workman.
7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that material
documents, which were relied on to establish the charges against the workman
were not filed in original before the enquiry officer, which aspect has not been
properly appreciated by the Tribunal, as the copies in Xerox cannot be taken as
substantive documents to hold the charges proved against the workman.
8. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel that the non
providing of opportunity to the workman to cross examine the witnesses coupled
with the non-production of the documents in original clearly would go to show
that not only there was glaring violation of principles of natural justice, but the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
allegations were also not proved in the manner known to law and, therefore, the
punishment imposed on the workman ought to have been set aside, however,
erroneously the Tribunal modified the punishment to one of compulsory
retirement, which is grossly perverse and arbitrary and without any reasonable
materials and, therefore, the same requires to be interfered with.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the workman placed reliance on the
following decisions :-
i) The General Manager (Personnal), Syndicate Bank & Ors. –
VS – B.S.N.Prasad (C.A. No.5327/2024 (SC)); and
ii) The General Manager, Indian Bank – Vs – The Presiding
Officer & Anr. (W.A. No.387/2024 – Dated 20.12.2024
(MHC))
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that
though the Tribunal has held that the materials inexplicably prove the
misconduct committed by the workman and that the misconduct is of a very
grave nature eroding the public trust reposed in the bank and that the
misconduct may lead to the bank losing confidence upon the workman, yet, had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
modified the punishment from one of dismissal from service to one of
compulsory retirement.
11. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the observation
of the Tribunal to modify the punishment imposed on the workman by holding
that the object of the bank to keep the workman away from service could be
achieved by changing the punishment from one of dismissal to compulsory
retirement with eligibility for some terminal benefits is grossly perverse, as it
would send a wrong signal to the other members of the bank to resort to such
misconduct at the fag end of their career with the fond hope that their
retirement benefits would stand safe in their hands, even if the case against them
is proved. The perversity of the order of the Tribunal not only benefits the
workman, but also acts in detriment not only to the bank, but also the general
public, who have reposed confidence in the bank and have deposited their hard
earned savings into their account, to be swindled away by unscrupulous persons.
12. In this backdrop, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the
award of the Tribunal, while safeguards the workman from the clutches of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
dismissal by compulsory retirement, however, punishes the bank for the
misconduct committed by the workman, as the misconduct of the workman is
leniently dealt with by allowing to go scot-free with all the terminal benefits,
while jeopardizing the position of the bank in the eyes of the general public. The
said award being passed without proper application of mind requires to be
interfered with in the interest of the institution and also from sending a wrong
signal to the other workmen/employees not to commit such acts while dealing
with public money and, therefore, prays for setting aside the award.
13. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on
record as also the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the parties.
14. It is an undisputed fact that during the relevant point of time, the
workman was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier during which phase the
misappropriation is alleged to have taken place. Materials have been placed
before the enquiry with regard to the acts of misappropriation. It is the
contention of the workman that the originals of the documents, which were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
relied on were not placed; rather Xerox copies only were placed, which cannot
form the basis to hold that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper
manner.
15. It is the settled legal position that insofar as departmental proceedings
is concerned, the appreciation of evidence is based on preponderance of
probability and not in the manner in which evidence is appraised during a
criminal prosecution. The enquiry authority has satisfied himself with regard to
the materials placed before it and the Tribunal has also, as the first appellate
authority, appreciated the enquiry report and accepted that the enquiry has been
conducted in a fair and proper manner. In fact, the Tribunal has held that the
misconduct cannot be assailed to be perverse as it has been rendered on legal
evidence and that there is no question of adequacy of evidence.
16. In the above backdrop, it is to be pointed out that this Court, sitting
under Article 226 of the Constitution in a matter of judicial review, cannot
reappreciate the evidence as a court of first instance or appellate authority. The
duty of this Court is only to see as to whether the enquiry has been fair and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
proper and that the enquiry has been conducted in consonance with principles of
natural justice.
17. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal reveals that the workman
has been granted sufficient opportunity to participate in the proceedings and if
the workman had not utilised the said opportunity to cross examine the
witnesses in the departmental enquiry, the workman cannot claim that
opportunity was not given to him. Its only the probative value of the evidence to
the prudent mind to arrive at the conclusion on the basis of the said evidence and
it is not a proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is warranted with the evidence
tendered. The Tribunal, on proper appreciation has held that the evidence, both
oral and documentary, placed during enquiry, unerringly point to the misconduct
of the workman and, therefore, had refrained from interfering with the said
finding rendered by the enquiry officer.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in B.C. Chaturvedi – Vs - Union of India,
(1995 (6) SCC 749), while dealing with the issue pertaining to the power of the
Court relating to judicial review, held as under :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of
judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the
authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court.
When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a
public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine
whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether
rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or
conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted
with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and
authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding
must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of
Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein,
apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that
evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the
disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer
is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial
review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the
evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the
evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority
held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of
statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the
conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based
on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal
may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the
relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where
appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive
power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment.
In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and
findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence
or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed
before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4
SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at p.
728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence
reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from
patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at
all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. In Director General of Police, RPF & Ors. - Vs – Rajendra Kumar Dubey
(C.A. No.3820/2020 dated 25.11.20), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, adverting to
the various decisions of the Apex Court relating to the interference by the High
Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with respect to disciplinary proceedings,
including the decision in Chaturvedi's case (supra), held as under :-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
“12.1 ...... It is well settled that the High Court must not act as
an appellate authority, and re-appreciate the evidence led before
the enquiry officer.
We will advert to some of the decisions of this Court with
respect to interference by the High Courts with findings in a
departmental enquiry against a public servant.
In State of Andhra Pradesh v S.Sree Rama Rao, a three judge
bench of this Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution is not a court of appeal over the decision of the
authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public
servant. It is not the function of the High Court under its writ
jurisdiction to review the evidence, and arrive at an independent
finding on the evidence. The High Court may, however interfere
where the departmental authority which has held the proceedings
against the delinquent officer are inconsistent with the principles
of natural justice, where the findings are based on no evidence,
which may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge, or in violation of the statutory rules
prescribing the mode of enquiry, or the authorities were actuated
by some extraneous considerations and failed to reach a fair
decision, or allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant
considerations, or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so
wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could
ever have arrived at that conclusion. If however the enquiry is
properly held, the departmental authority is the sole judge of
facts, and if there is some legal evidence on which the findings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a
matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High
Court in a writ petition.
These principles were further reiterated in the State of
Andhra Pradesh v Chitra Venkata Rao. The jurisdiction to issue a
writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction.
The court exercises the power not as an appellate court. The
findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal on the
appreciation of evidence, are not re-opened or questioned in writ
proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the
record can be corrected by a writ court, but not an error of fact,
however grave it may be. A writ can be issued if it is shown that in
recording the finding of fact, the tribunal has erroneously refused
to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence. A finding of fact recorded by the
tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the material
evidence adduced before the tribunal is insufficient or inadequate
to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led
on a point, and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said
finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal.
In subsequent decisions of this Court, including Union of India
v. G. Ganayutham, Director General RPF v. Ch. Sai Babu,
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v T.T.
Murali, Union of India v. Manab Kumar Guha, these principles
have been consistently followed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
In a recent judgment delivered by this Court in the State of
Rajasthan & Ors. v. Heem Singh this Court has summed up the
law in following words :
“33. In exercising judicial review in disciplinary matters, there
are two ends of the spectrum. The first embodies a rule of
restraint. The second defines when interference is permissible.
The rule of restraint constricts the ambit of judicial review. This is
for a valid reason. The determination of whether a misconduct
has been committed lies primarily within the domain of the
disciplinary authority. The judge does not assume the mantle of
the disciplinary authority. Nor does the judge wear the hat of an
employer. Deference to a finding of fact by the disciplinary
authority is a recognition of the idea that it is the employer who is
responsible for the efficient conduct of their service. Disciplinary
enquiries have to abide by the rules of natural justice. But they
are not governed by strict rules of evidence which apply to judicial
proceedings. The standard of proof is hence not the strict
standard which governs a criminal trial, of proof beyond
reasonable doubt, but a civil standard governed by a
preponderance of probabilities. Within the rule of preponderance,
there are varying approaches based on context and subject. The
first end of the spectrum is founded on deference and autonomy –
deference to the position of the disciplinary authority as a fact
finding authority and autonomy of the employer in maintaining
discipline and efficiency of the service. At the other end of the
spectrum is the principle that the court has the jurisdiction to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
interfere when the findings in the enquiry are based on no
evidence or when they suffer from perversity. A failure to consider
vital evidence is an incident of what the law regards as a perverse
determination of fact. Proportionality is an entrenched feature of
our jurisprudence. Service jurisprudence has recognized it for long
years in allowing for the authority of the court to interfere when
the finding or the penalty are disproportionate to the weight of
the evidence or misconduct. Judicial craft lies in maintaining a
steady sail between the banks of these two shores which have
been termed as the two ends of the spectrum. Judges do not rest
with a mere recitation of the hands-off mantra when they
exercise judicial review. To determine whether the finding in a
disciplinary enquiry is based on some evidence an initial or
threshold level of scrutiny is undertaken. That is to satisfy the
conscience of the court that there is some evidence to support the
charge of misconduct and to guard against perversity. But this
does not allow the court to re-appreciate evidentiary findings in a
disciplinary enquiry or to substitute a view which appears to the
judge to be more appropriate. To do so would offend the first
principle which has been outlined above. The ultimate guide is the
exercise of robust common sense without which the judges’ craft
is in vain.”
In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, this Court held that the
High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India shall not venture into re-appreciation of
the evidence. The High Court would determine whether : (a) the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
enquiry is held by the competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held
according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is
violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the
proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations which are
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the
authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the
very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g)
the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the
admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority
had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced
the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Court held that :
“13.Under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of
India, the High Court shall not :
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the
case the same has been conducted in accordance with
law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may
appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
20. From the ratio laid down above, it is implicitly clear that the Courts, in
exercise of its power of judicial review, cannot extend the examination to the
correctness of the act of the disciplinary authority, but only limit itself to the
manner in which the decision has been arrived at by the authority and whether
the same is in accordance with law. This Court is to test only the correctness of
the decision arrived at by the authority on the basis of the evidence before it,
which has since been confirmed by the Tribunal and not proceed with the case as
if it is an appeal against the order of punishment.
21. The Tribunal, on dissection of the evidence tendered before it as also
before the enquiry officer, which formed the basis of the report, had accepted
the findings of guilt recorded against the workman and this Court, sitting in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
judicial review, is not inclined to interfere with the said finding, so long as it is not
perverse and it is in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
22. Now the only question that requires the determination of this Court is
whether the modification of punishment by the Tribunal, on the facts of the case,
is just and warranted.
23. A careful perusal of the order of the Tribunal reveals that while
embarking upon the scope of interference with the punishment, the Tribunal has
recorded a finding that the nature of misconduct of swindling the customer’s
money is a grave misconduct and an act prejudicial to the interests of the bank
and, therefore, the continuance of the workman in the services of the bank
would not only prejudice the customers, but would impact the credibility of the
bank in the eyes of its customers. The Tribunal has reasoned for interfering with
the punishment of dismissal by pointing out that “while avoiding such a
delinquent is the prominent aim of the Management, it could well be brought
about by ordering the petitioner’s removal from service or imposing compulsory
retirement with his eligibility for some terminal benefits.” The above view,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
according to the Bank, is erroneous when the Tribunal has found out that the
misconduct is grave in nature.
24. In this regard, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of General Manager, Indian Bank – Vs – The Presiding Officer & Anr. (W.A.
No.387/2024 – Dated 20.12.2024), is pressed into service, wherein, the Division
Bench has held as under :-
10. But here the issue is, when the bipartite agreement
dated 10.04.2002, mandates the Disciplinary Authority as well
as the Appellate Authority to consider the previous records,
and aggravating and extenuating circumstances, we must see,
whether such exercise was undertaken by the Authorities.
While reading the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority, this Court could not find any traces of
consideration in this regard. Only in such a background, the
Tribunal got into the proportionality of the punishment. On a
wholesome reading of the order of the Tribunal, the reason for
modification is on two folds. One is at the time of imposition
of punishment the employee was 57 years old, and the second
is, the 2 nd charge of misappropriation was initially closed,
and only on account of subsequent complaint, the said charge
was reopened.
* * * * * *
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
12. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent
relied upon the case reported in (2009) 12 SCC 267 in the case
of D.M.Premkumari Vs.Divisional Commissioner, Mysore,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court eloquently explained
that, many a times people mistakenly think that the Courts are
separated from the feelings and righteousness; There is also
general misunderstanding that the Court should not express
such emotions of indignation, sorrow and compassion, but the
reality is that the judiciary has very strong sense of justice and
it works to maintain social justice and fairness. The above
proposition squarely applies to the above set of facts, and the
Tribunal and learned Single Judge had rightly permeated the
above principle to the present case.
13. In the present case the bipartite settlement provides
maximum punishment of dismissal and minimum punishment
of fine to the misconduct classified as major. The present
charge comes within the ambit of major misconduct. As
already stated there are no reasons as to why maximum
punishment of dismissal was imposed. This lapse assumes
significance in the backdrop of the diligent long unblemish
service and his conduct of not hiding the error. In a writ
jurisdiction, this Court will generally interfere only when
theorder is perverse. In this regard, it is appropriate to extract
the expression “perverse” defined by various dictionaries:-
a .Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current
English, 6th E d.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
Perverse – Showing deliberate determination to
behave in a way that most people think is wrong,
unacceptable or unreasonable.
b.Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English –
International Edition
Perverse – Deliberately departing from what is
normal and reasonable.
c.The New Oxford Dictionary of English – 1998
Edition
Perverse - Law (of a verdict) against the weight of
evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law.
d.New Webster's Dictionary of the English
Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition)
Perverse – Purposely deviating from accepted or
expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward;
stubborn; cross or petulant.
e .Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases,
4th E d.
Perverse - A perverse verdict may probably be
defined as one that is not only against the weight of
evidence but is altogether against the evidence.”
14. In view of the above expression to the word Perverse,
the reason assigned by the Tribunal, could not be termed as
perverse and it's view is quite plausible. In the light of the
above discussion, the findings of the Tribunal are well
merited.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
25. There could be no quarrel with the fact that the misconduct of the
workman is grave in nature. However, in the same stretch, it cannot also be
construed that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous, as the
Tribunal has clearly reasoned that what weighed in the mind of the bank is the
continuance of the workman in the post which would prejudice the customers
and would harm the bank. Considering the fact that the workman had put in
almost 16 years of service, when he was dismissed from service and considering
the fact that there were no earlier complaints against the workman of such
nature in his service, the Tribunal, exercising its power u/s 11-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, had modified the punishment from dismissal to cone of compulsory
retirement, which cannot be said to be erroneous. When the Tribunal is clothed
with power u/s 11-A of the Act and had given just and proper reasons to modify
the punishment, this Court, in the absence of any perversity, shall not interfere
with the said order, unless the said order of modification is shocking the
conscience of the Court, which, in the present case, the modification of
punishment does not do so.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
26. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the order of the Tribunal modifying the punishment and,
accordingly, both the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
19.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
GLN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
To
The Presiding Officer
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
-cum- Labour Court
1st Floor, ‘B’ Wing
26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan
Chennai 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
GLN
W.P. NO. 8417 OF 2012
AND
W.P. NO. 3506 OF 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
____________
W.P. No.8417/2012-3506/2013
19.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
