Allowed

E. Manickam v. the Industrial Tribunal at

Madras HC14 Dec 2016WP/24709/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by enhancing the punishment from discharge to dismissal beyond the scope of the government reference. The Court modified the Tribunal's award to reinstate the petitioner's discharge status and entitled the petitioner to associated benefits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the Industrial Tribunal's operative portion awarding dismissal is modified to discharge, with the petitioner entitled to benefits attached to discharge.

E. Manickam Vs the Industrial Tribunal at — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 14.12.2016

¶2

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Writ Petition No.24709 of 2001

¶3

E.Manickam

¶4

57, Madha Koil Street, Mahabalipuram - 603 104. Chengai District. ..Petitioner

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

The Industrial Tribunal at Chennai High Court Building Campus Chennai-600 104.

¶7

Indian Overseas Bank Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director 762, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned award of the first respondent dated 19.02.2001 in ID.No.92/94 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits including back-wages.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.R.Chandra Sekar R1 : Tribunal For R2 : Mr.Srinivasamoorthy for Mr.N.G.R.Prasad

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned award of the first respondent dated 19.02.2001 in ID.No.92/94, quash the same and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits, including back-wages.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

¶13

The petitioner was working as a Shroff / Godown Keeper in Mahabalipuram Branch of Indian Overseas Bank. For certain acts of commission and omission, the petitioner was placed under

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

suspension on 13.07.1988. Thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner which ultimately culminated in the order dated 25.08.1989 which reads as follows :

¶16

"Now on the quantum of punishment, I wish to observe as follows:

¶17

Considering your past record of service, taking a lenient view, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will be fully met by merely discharging you in terms of para 17.6(e) of the Bipartite Settlement instead of awarding the punishment of dismissal proposed in the show cause notice.

¶18

I therefore condone your misconduct and pass this original order, merely discharging you from bank's service with immediate effect and without notice in terms of Para 17.6(e) of the Bipartite Settlement between the bank and its workmen dated 14.12.1966 as amended upto date.

¶19

However, with regard to the period of suspension, please note that you will not be entitled to any other amount other than the subsistence allowance already paid to you. "

¶20

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who, by order dated 19.10.1989, confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal in ID.No.92 of 1994.

¶21

After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, the Industrial Tribunal, by order dated 19.02.2001 in ID.No.92 of 1994, confirmed the findings of the Appellate Authority and the Disciplinary Authority. The conclusion portion of the said order reads as follows:

¶22

"Similarly, in 1988 III LLN 652, it was held that a bank employee discounting his own cheques and allowing overdrafts in excess of his power had committed serious misconduct and was dismissed.

¶23

Similarly in 1996(9) Supreme Court Cases P.69 it was held that Acting beyond one's authority was misconduct within the meaning of Rule 24 of Central Bank of India Officers Employees Regulations and allowing overdrafts or passing cheques involving substantial amount beyond his authority should not be treated as error of judgment. Again in 1998 III LLN P.89, it was held that in banking business absolute

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

devotion, diligence and integrity need to be preserved by every bank employee and if this is not observed confidence of depositors would be impaired and it was held in 2000 II LLJ P.1395 that once misappropriation stood proved, showing sympathies uncalled for, it was described in 1977 I LLN 391 as misplaced sympathy.

¶26

So, in this case, Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 could not be applied. The dismissal of the petitioner is thus found justified. Award passed accordingly. No costs."

¶27

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority had concurrently imposed punishment of discharge from service, whereas, the Industrial Tribunal had converted the punishment into dismissal from service which is not sustainable in law.

¶29

There appears to be sufficient force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though the Industrial Tribunal has the power to modify the order passed by the Appellate Authority or the Disciplinary Authority either by enhancing or reducing the punishment, yet, in this case, what was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government is only with regard to the correctness of the order of discharge passed by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal has gone beyond the reference made by the Government and thereby, has exceeded its jurisdiction.

¶30

In view of the foregoing discussion, the order of discharge passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are hereby confirmed and the operative portion of the award dated 19.02.2001 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in ID.No.92/1994 is modified to the effect that instead of dismissal, the petitioner is discharged from service and consequently, the petitioner will be entitled to get other benefits attached to the punishment of discharge if any, in terms of the Disciplinary Authority's order, if not, already disbursed.

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. Costs made easy.

¶33

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶34

True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1. The Industrial Tribunal
at Chennai
High Court Building Campus
Chennai-600 104.
2. The Chairman and the Managing Director
Indian Overseas Bank
762, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002.
+1 cc to Mr.N.G.R.Prasad Advocate sr 73121
+1 cc to Mr.C.R.Chandrasekar Advocate sr 73382
WP.No.24709 of 2001
pvs(co)
aa09/01/2017

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

E. Manickam v. the Industrial Tribunal at

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Manickam v. the Industrial Tribunal at

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Ramalingam Vs Director of School Education

Dr.S.Brathibha Vs The Chief Immigration Officer

Anand Kumar Jhawar Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

Mrs.M.Mangammal Vs the Commissioner

Tmt.R.Mary Stella Vs the Director of School

M.Janagavel, Vs The District Collector