Remanded

Punjab National Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 May 2022WRIC/8973/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a laconic award by the Industrial Tribunal dismissing a workman. The High Court set aside the award due to lack of specific findings and remanded the matter with directions for fresh proceedings and limited evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award dated 09.8.2021 is set aside. Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh award after hearing. Respondent-workman granted two months to lead evidence on lack of gainful employment.

Punjab National Bank Vs Central Government… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8973 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Punjab National Bank Respondent :- Central Government Industrial Tribunal-CumLabour Court And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar Counsel for Respondent :- Ankush Tandon

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankush Tandon learned counsel for the respondent-workman.

¶6

On the last date, laches were found to have been explained. Thereafter, at the instance of the Court, parties were given an opportunity to seek settlement of the dispute outside the Court.

¶7

Today, it transpires that such settlement may not be reached, at this stage.

¶8

Prima facie the award appears to be laconic, an opportunity was granted to the learned counsel for the respondent-wrokman to obtain instruction. He would submit that in the present facts, he does not propose to file counter affidavit. Accordingly the matter has been proceeded.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite earlier remand made to the Industrial Tribunal, the impugned award dated 09.8.2021 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur in ID No. 81 of 2002 is laconic. Besides making certain discussion on the rival fact and circumstances, the Tribunal has not returned any clear cut finding to reinstate the workman or to find the workman worthy of reinstatement, yet without giving any other or further reasoning, it has interfered with the award of punishment and found the respondent-workman entitled to backwages to the

¶10

extent of 40%. Even, in that regard the award of 40% backwages is not preceded by any finding of lack of gainful employment suffered by the workman during the period when his services remained terminated. In fact, the Tribunal has not even returned a finding of innocence of the respondentworkman. It has only made observation that the punishment offered appears to be too harsh. As to the domestic enquiry, it has clearly observed that no substantial prejudice was occasioned to the workman. Effectively, the domestic enquiry proceedings have been found to be valid in law.

¶11

While the Tribunal must seek to bring a closure to old disputes, at the same time that result may arrive either through settlement reached between the parties in the course of proceedings before the Tribunal or the Labour Court or by reaching firm conclusions based on reasoning arising from the pleadings and evidence on record.

¶12

In the present case, no settlement had been reached before the Tribunal. Then, as noted above, the findings are unclear and unsure. Neither the domestic enquiry has been found vitiated nor the respondent workman found to be innocent. In that case the only course that may have remained open to the Tribunal may have been to interfere with the award of dismissal and substitution of that punishment with a lesser punishment. For that, a specific finding would have to be recorded as to why the Tribunal felt convinced that the punishment awarded was too harsh. In that the Tribunal would have remained burdened to record clear findings as to guilt or innocence of the respondent workman with respect to specific charges. It is only in that context that the punishment awarded may have been examined by the Tribunal and its consequence may have been considered to reach a conclusion if the punishment awarded was too harsh.

¶13

Properly, that issue may have been considered by the Tribunal after issuance of notice to the petitioner to obtain its response to the lesser punishment proposed.

¶14

Accordingly, the award dated 09.8.2021 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to pass fresh award after hearing the parties afresh and on the strength of material and evidence on record.

¶15

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent seeks (orally) to be allowed one opportunity to lead evidence with respect to plea of lack of gainful employment. The request made is accepted.

¶16

The respondent-workman may make such pleadings and lead such evidence within a period of two months from today. The petitioner shall have two month thereafter to rebut the pleadings and evidence that may be made by the respondent workman. Thereafter, the Tribunal may fix fresh date for hearing and pass appropriate award within a period of three months from the date of closure of evidence by both parties, in light of the observations made above.

¶17

With the above observations, present petition stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.5.2022 Faraz

¶19

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.05.07 16:21:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Punjab National Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Presiding Officer and 7 Others

M/S Gift Land Allahabad Vs P.O. Industrial Tribunal I Alld. and Another

Prayagraj Development Authority Vs Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner and 2 Others

Modi Distillery Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sharma Ultrasound Centre Sarvahit Hospital and 2 Others Vs State Appropriate Authority for Pc and Pndt (Appellate Authority) and 2 Others

M/S Bata India Ltd. Kolkata and Others Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Allahabad and Another