R N MADHAVA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unfortunate case, for a Bank clerk (also an ex-serviceman) who had grievance of denial promotion to him for pretty long time is up in arms as against his own employer, the Canara Bank. This petition is filed under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act as against the respondent-Canara Bank, represented by its Chairman, Sri T. R. Sridharan, with a prayer that the respondent-Bank be proceeded against for the offence committed under sub-clause (iii) of Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel for the complainant, Sri O. Sridharan on the one side and the learned Senior Counsel, Sri M. R. Narasimhamurthy appearing for the respondent-Bank. We also perused the case records.

(3.) THE main allegations averred in the contempt petition are that when WA No. 367/93 came to be disposed of on 5-2-1996 by the Division Bench to which the second of us was a Presiding Judge along with his Lordship Justice S. A. Hakeem, as he then was, the respondent-Bank had suppressed the fact that the reference in ID No. 43/88 before the Industrial Tribunal, Madras for adjudication under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was dismissed on 2-12-1993 and that because of that suppression of fact, the Division Bench was alluded to pass a wrong order to dismiss the writ appeal with liberty to the petitioner to intervene in the above industrial dispute on the file of the said Industrial Tribunal and further that when I. A. III came to be filed in the hands of the petitioner in the said writ appeal for recalling the above order passed on 5-2-1996, the Division Bench consisting of his Lordship Justice, G. C. Bharuka and second of us had observed that the same was an act of contempt on the part of the respondent-Bank and therefore advised the petitioner to file a criminal contempt as against the Bank. That, the respondent-Bank having filed detailed counter to traverse the petition-averments denied the allegations in toto. It also contended that when the writ appeal in WA No. 367/93 came to be dismissed on 5-12-1996, the respondent-Bank did not urge the Division Bench of this Court to direct the complainant to seek relief in the hands of the Industrial Tribunal. It also contended that while disposing of I. A. III by the Division Bench on 28-1-1998, the Division Bench categorically stated that there was no reference to the pendency or otherwise of the reference before the Industrial Tribunal at Madras and that therefore, it could not be contended by the petitioner that there was misrepresentation on the part of the Bank before the Division Bench as alleged. That, such a statement was made by the respondent-Bank with reference to the order that came to be passed on 28-1-1998 on I. A. No. III by the Division Bench. That thereafter, the respondent-Bank had also got filed an affidavit duly sworn to by its Senior Manager working in its Circle Office at Chennai to say that there was absolutely no intention on the part of the Bank or any of the officials of the Bank to suppress the fact of disposal of the reference or to mislead this Court and that they have got just respect for Courts etc. ,. The petitioner had also filed counter-affidavit as against the said affidavit filed by the said official of the respondent-Bank to challenge the same. We do not think, it is necessary for us to advert to all that while considering the instant contempt petition.