RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to set aside the award dated 23.04.2013, passed in ID No. 52/2011 by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim statement of the petitioner, being premature.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as borne out from the petition are that the petitioner was suspended on 08.12.2006 on account of alleged misappropriation of funds from customers account and memo of charges were issued on 12.11.2007 and 04.06.2008 for unauthorized debiting of customers account and using the money. A decision to hold enquiry against the petitioner was taken by the respondent bank on 01.09.2008. Thereafter, findings were given by the enquiry officer on the charges against the petitioner. On 24.08.2010, penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits was imposed upon the petitioner and the period of suspension was directed to be treated as period not spent on duty. On 23.09.2010, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority who vide its order dated 16.11.2010 upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, on 27.07.2011 the petitioner filed his claim raising Industrial Dispute no. 52/2011 before the learned Industrial Tribunal, in terms of Section 10 (4A) {inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "ID Act") vide Delhi Act 9 of 2003, section 2 w.e.f from 22.08.2003}. Vide order dated 23.04.2013, learned Presiding Officer held that since the claimant/petitioner did not comply with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 2A {inserted in the ID Act by Act 24 of 2010, sec.3 (w.e.f. 15-9- 2010)}, the tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred the present petition.