Dismissed

The Deputy General Manager Ir. Cell, Syndicate v. The Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad

Telangana HC29 Jan 2014WA/1965/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the syndicate bank's writ appeal against a Single Judge's order confirming a Tribunal's award. The Tribunal set aside the workman's dismissal due to lack of evidence and non-compliance with a settlement. The Court upheld the Single Judge's interference based on the findings of no evidence.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; impugned order confirming the Tribunal's award allowing reinstatement stands.

The Deputy General Manager Ir. Cell… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.1965 OF 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT: ( Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah)

¶4

This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 20.12.2004, in W.P.No.20261 of 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the award dated 20.05.1994 in I.D.No.76 of 1992 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad was confirmed.

¶5

The appellant is the Syndicate Bank represented by its Deputy General Manager, I.R.Cell, Zonal Office, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. The 2^nd respondent-workman was employed as a Clerk in the Syndicate Bank in the year 1969. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation that he has committed certain irregularities in respect of grant of loans to one U.Koteswar Rao and M.Sreenivasa Rao and that he has not maintained proper accounts and, ultimately, he was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 29.06.1991. Aggrieved thereby, the workman raised an Industrial Dispute and the same was referred to the Industrial Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide order dated 10.08.1992 of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, passed under Section 10 (1) (d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) for resolving the following issue:

¶6

“Whether the action of the Management of Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, Vijayawada, now shifted to Hyderabad in dismissing Sri R.Baba Prasad, Special Assistant, Syndicate Bank, Ongole Branch, w.e.f. 29-691 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen entitled

¶7

to?”

¶8

The said reference was registered as I.D.No.76 of 1992. Before the Tribunal, no witnesses were examined on either side, but Exs.W1 to W6 were marked on behalf of the workman and Exs.M1 to M26 were marked on behalf of the appellant-management. Before deciding the merits of the case, the Tribunal has held the domestic enquiry that was conducted by the management to be valid. Thereafter, on considering the entire evidence on record and the submissions made on either side, the Tribunal, in its award dated 20.05.1994, observed as under:

¶9

“In this case also admittedly the parties are bound by the Bipartite Settlement. Even the disciplinary action is taken only basing on it. In these circumstances it goes without saying that the said clause is mandatory and the employer is bound to comply with it. A perusal at the dismissal order will make it clear that there is noncompliance of the said clause and therefore the dismissal order is liable to be set aside on this ground also. In this case, the petitioner has a total service of 22 years and the same is clear and unblemished. This is an important and the same should have been given due weight. For all the reasons stated above I am of the view that the dismissal order is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitionerworkman into service with full back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits.”

¶10

Challenging the award, the management filed the writ petition being W.P.No.20261 of 1994 before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the management complied with Section 17-B wages. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge of this Court, on considering the whole issue with regard to the factual position of the service conditions of the workman as well as the findings of the

¶11

Tribunal and the material placed before the Court, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 20.12.2004. The observations made in the writ petition are extracted hereunder:

¶12

“Further, the Tribunal also examined the decisions rendered by various courts on the point and came to the conclusion that the dismissal order itself was contrary to the Bipartite Settlement, even if the disciplinary action was to be taken basing on it. In the circumstances, it goes without saying that the clause in the Bipartite agreement was mandatory and the employer is bound to comply with it. Since the management has not complied with the same, the order of dismissal was not proper. Further, it also noticed the fact that the workman had put in unblemished service of 22 years. Under these circumstances, while exercising its powers under Section 11-A of the Act set aside the dismissal order and held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages and all other attendant benefits.

¶13

The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that while holding the Enquiry as valid, the Tribunal ought not to have appreciated the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion than that of the disciplinary authority and such a course of action is not permissible. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the said submission. The impugned award is well reasoned one and the entire evidence was well appreciated. I find no reason to interfere with the said award passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.”

¶14

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed in the writ petition, this writ appeal is preferred by the management.

¶15

During the pendency of the writ appeal, the workman, who attained the age of superannuation in the year 2009, died in 2012. Therefore, the L.Rs of the workman were brought on record as respondents 3 to 6 by virtue of the order dated 13.11.2013 in WAMP.No.2696 of 2012.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that when once the domestic enquiry that was conducted by the management was held to be valid and proper, the Tribunal ought not to have gone into the merits of the case, except to hold that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is proper. Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge of this Court ought to have allowed the writ petition holding that the Tribunal grossly erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no sufficient material for the enquiry officer to hold the workman guilty.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that if the domestic enquiry becomes the basis for imposing the punishment on the workman, the Tribunal, under Section 11-A of the Act, is empowered to re-appreciate the entire evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry to know whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is justified or not. Further, learned counsel would submit that in exercise of writ jurisdiction especially certiorari jurisdiction, the findings of fact reached by the inferior Tribunal as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and inference of fact to be drawn from the said findings are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. These cannot be agitated before a writ Court unless the finding of fact is ex facie perverse. In support of his contentions, the

¶18

learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in Arrack Bottling Unit v. Hon’ble Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribuna l^[1] , Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Ra i^[2] , M.Ch.Subba Rao v. Depot Manager, APSRTC^[3] and P.Maheshwar Rao vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Cour t^[4] .

¶19

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire material placed on record.

¶20

From a perusal of the entire record, it is evident that two charges are framed against the workman. With regard to the charge pertaining to the account of Mr. U.Koteswar Rao is concerned, the Tribunal found that the enquiry officer has not given any finding on it. Insofar as another charge pertaining to the account of M.Srinivasa Rao, it was observed that the finding was given without there being any evidence and that the witnesses, whose statements have become the basis for the enquiry officer in holding the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him, were not examined before the enquiry officer and that their statements were taken out of the enquiry but not during the course of enquiry. As such, taking note of all these aspects, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it is a case of no evidence and, accordingly, set aside the dismissal order, which was rightly confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court considering the entire facts of the case. Hence, we find no merit in the writ appeal so as to interfere with the impugned order.

¶21

The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous

¶22

petitions pending in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

G.CHANDRAIAH, J

¶24

____________________ CHALLA KODANDARAM, J

¶25

29-01-2014 v v

¶26

[1] 2012 (1) ALT 561 (D.B.) [2] (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675