REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a shocking instance of how the discretionary power conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is abused by the Tribunal to interfere with the order of punishment on the pretext of alleged disproportionate nature of the punishment.

(1.) The facts are no longer in dispute. The respondent No.2 was working as a clerk in State Bank of India. The incident took place more than two decades back on 21.1.1983. The second respondent reported late for duty and therefore, the “acting chance” was given to the next senior most employee. The second respondent, who opposed such routine action, went to the Branch Manager’s room and shouted at him and used derisive language. The Branch Manager tried to pacify the second respondent. When the second respondent demanded a written explanation from the acting Branch Manager, the latter cautioned him and the second respondent retorted by saying that “ Oh! You had the courage to issue me a memo. I will break your teeth”. The acting Branch Manager proceeded to the Branch Manager’s room and the second respondent followed him with a leave letter stating that as a protest he was going on leave. The acting Branch Manager asked him to place the leave letter on the table. The acting Branch Manager got a memo typed to be issued to the second respondent and when he returned to his room, the leave letter was missing. When the acting Branch Manager sought to serve the memo on the second respondent, the latter shouted at him as “ you have guts to issue the memo. I will beat you in the office itself and I will break your teeth”. So saying, the second respondent tried to destroy the memo by lighting a match stick. Then the second respondent forcibly snatched the memo from the acting Branch Manager and tore it. The second respondent also took his chappal in his hand and raised the same with a view to beat the acting Branch Manager, but the staff members intervened and led the second respondent away from the scene.

(3.) Subsequently, the second respondent was served with a charge memo calling upon to him show cause and after holding a domestic enquiry, an order of dismissal was passed on 26.4.1983.