INDIAN BANK, LIMITED Vs. RAMANATHAN S. M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, by special leave, challenges the correctness of the orders dated August 1, 1963, May 4, 1964 and the final order dated June 3, 1964 of the Central Government, labour court, Delhi, passed in an application filed by the respondent under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 4 of 1947.

(2.) THE application was filed by the respondent against the two orders, Ex. M. 5, dated October 8, 1954, and Ex. M. 8, dated June 19, 1957, whereby in disciplinary action taken by the management against him for gross misconduct two increments in his salary for a period of two years each were stopped. It appears that on February 12, 1954 the board of directors of the appellant-bank passed a resolution, Ex. M. 16, which stated that there was trouble between the respondent and another employee, one Arunachalam, that the secretary of the bank, who is the executive head of the bank, had suggested disciplinary action against both the employees where-upon the board decided that the two employees should "be warned" and

(3.) THE labour court held that the fact that the order, Ex. M. 8, was passed by the secretary meant that the office suggestion in Ex. M. 7 was not followed and instead of the board passing a suitable order, it was the secretary who passed the order. The labour court observed that the said order was no doubt placed before the board, but that was not for confirmation by the board but only for its information. This conclusion is not borne out by the record. It appears that after the order, Ex. M. 8, was communicated to the respondent he made a representation, Ex. M. 10, dated July 1, 1957, to the secretary. In that representation he admitted that he had an altercation with the other employee in which he had used what he called "harsh words" but denied that he had said anything against any staff officer. He requested that in view of his long service in the bank "his misbehaviour" should be condoned. The endorsement made beneath his representation by the secretary shows that the order of transfer and stoppage of two increments passed against the respondent was placed before the board at its meeting on July 5, 1957 for confirmation. At that meeting, a note, Ex. M. 18, dated July 5, 1957, was also placed before the board informing the board of the facts on which disciplinary action was taken and the order passed against him by the secretary. It is thus clear that what was put upbefore the board for its information was this note. On the same day, presumably, after the directors' meeting concluded the secretary noted that the action taken against the respondent could not be revised and directed that this decision should be communicated to the respondent.