SYNDICATE BANK LIMITED Vs. K RAMANATH V BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the award, dated November 10, 1964, of the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad, accepting a complaint, filed by the respondent, under Section 83-A, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act) .

(2.) The respondent was, at the material time, working in the main branch of the appellant, at Belgaum. By order dated March 8, 1963, the respondent was transferred to Bhatkal branch, as a 'C' rank Officer, to work there, as an accountant. He was also informed that he was being relieved, so as to enable him to proceed to duty, at the place of transfer, by March 18, 1963. He was allowed three days' joining time.

(3.) On March 13, 1963, the Manager of the Branch at Belgaum, informed the respondent that he was relieved, with effect from that date, to join duty at the Bhatkal branch, by March 18, 1963. The respondents, by letter dated March 14, 1963, after setting out the various matters therein, applied for privilege leave, for ninety days, from March 14, 1983 to June 11, 1963, so as to enable him to improve his health and also to attend to certain domestic matters. But the Bank, the appellant herein, desired him, by their letter dated March 23, 1963 to join duty and then apply for leave, if necessary. Some further correspondence ensued, between the Bank and the respondent, the respondent again making a request for sanction of his leave and the appellant Bank insisting upon his joining duty, according to the order of transfer, and then applying for leave. But, as the respondent did not join duty at the Bhatkal branch, though he was relieved from the Belgaum officer the appellant, by their communication, dated July 23, 1963, desired the respondent to offer explanation for not obeying the order of transfer. The respondent sent a reply, on July 29, 1963, stating what, according to him, were the reasons for his not joining duty at the transferred office. The appellant Bank, not satisfied with the explanation, given by the respondent, framed two charges against him, and communicated the same, on August 7, 1963. The charges were to the effect that (a) the respondent, by wilfully disobeying the lawful and reasonable transfer order of the management, has committed gross misconduct, for which the punishment is dismissal from service, and (b) the respondent had absented himself from March 14, 1963, without leave, which again, is a minor misconduct for which also punishment can be imposed. The respondent was also directed to submit his explanation, if any, to the charges on or before August 25, 1963. The respondent offered his explanation to the charges by his letter dated August 21, 1963. The appellant informed the respondent, on October 1, 1963, that an enquiry would be conducted against him, in respect of the charges, on October 5, 1963, and desired him to be present at the enquiry, with the necessary evidence, in support of his defence.