INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. G NAGIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALAGIRISWAMI, J. has refused to issue a rule nisi against an order of the additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation by which he had set aside the termination by the appellant bank of the first respondent's services. The termination order which followed a domestic enquiry was dated 26-2-1968. The charge against the first respondent framed as early as 18-10-1965, was that he had, on 29-4-1965 and 20-9-1965 issued two circulars Nos. 2 of 1965 and 3 of 1965 respectively, in the name of the appellant bank employees union subscribing his name thereto as its secretary, and caused them to be distributed freely among the members of the staff of the appellant bank at its central office and its branches that in the two circulars he had made baseless and scurrilous allegations against the management with a view to create prejudice in the minds of the staff in order to bring about disharmony between the management and the staff, and also by these allegations to bring discredit and disrepute to the management, which would cause great harm to the appellant institution itself. This according to the charge constituted violation of Rules 21 and 28 of the Rules governing the service of the officers in the appellant bank. Pending an enquiry into the charge the first respondent was placed under suspension with immediate effect. At the enquiry, the charge was found proved and the first respondent in consequence was dismissed from service. The first respondent's appeal to the Additional commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 41 (2) of the Madras shops and Establishments Act. 1947, however, succeeded. This officer found that the first respondent had, as held by the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry, issued the circulars in his personal capacity and not as secretary of the employees' union and that therefore, he was amenable to the disciplinary proceedings of the management. He also thought that the language used by the first respondent in the two circulars was indeed strong and highly critical of the management, and particularly of one Mr. Rao, who was then the Assistant General Manager in charge of the staff. But, all the same he was of opinion that it had not been categorically proved by the management in the domestic enquiry as to how the first respondent had committed a breach of the two rules. He held, therefore, that the charge had not been proved beyond doubt. He recorded a further finding that the action of the management in this case was to some extent as he put it, an act of victimization for the first respondent's union activities. Alagiriswami, J. while dismissing the appellant's petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, expressed the view that the circulars read as a whole were only calculated to ventilate the grievance of the first respondent against Mr. Rao, and they were not in any way prejudicial to the interests of the appellant bank.

(2.) FOR the appellant the case has been presented to us with a certain amount of vehement enthusiasm which was perhaps justified in the circumstances, but we are of the view that although the conduct of the first respondent in having issued the circulars and at the domestic enquiry is reprehensible, we cannot say that the additional Commissioner's order suffers from any error of law. The circulars which form the subject-matter of the charge against the first respondent are somewhat lengthy. Their purport was to severely criticize Mr. Rao in respect of his supposed acts of omission and commission the shortsighted policies suggested by him to the board of Directors and the Chairman, the wrong and distorted picture of the state of affairs of the staff position as given to them, and the disparity and discrimination patent in his dealings in regard to promotions, transfers, recruitment, confirmations etc. With this atmosphere he asked in the circular, how on earth could the staff have contentment and how could they expect the bank to improve deposits? The circular charged Mr. Rao of being a personality in creating staff problems and living on them, and described the all-India union leaders as regular stooges in his hands to the entire detriment of the employees concerned. In the circumstances, according to the first respondent in this circular it was high time the management bestowed thought and considered the removal of Mr. Rao, who according to him had become an utter failure in his position. The basic grievance of the first respondent, as we see from the circular, seems to have emanated from the question of bonus for the year 1962-63. The second circular at the outset voiced his grievance that his transfer to Devakottai by Mr. Rao was motivated. He repeated his allegation that Mr. Rao misguided and misrepresented things to the Board of Directors to punish him without any mistake on his part. Then came the following in the second circular:

(3.) IS there any error of law in the order of the Additional Commissioner for workmen's Compensation? We are not satisfied that there is. Rule 21 covers a subversive activity prejudicial in any way to the interests of the bank. 'subvert' means overturn, upset, effect destruction. It may relate to anything but in the context of Rule 21, it has reference to what is prejudicial to the interests of the bank, that is to say, what may be harmful to or adversely affect the interests of the bank. By interests of the bank, one would understand not merely the banking business in its comprehensive sense but also the administration, the staff the discipline and the morale of the staff, Rule 28, among other things in the present context includes indifference or knowingly doing anything detrimental to the interests of the bank. In this case, if Rule 21 has no application to the facts, it may not in out view be possible to hold that Rule 28 has been infringed either. The whole question is whether the two circulars amounted to subversive activity prejudicial to the interests of the bank.