ALLAHABAD BANK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While working as clerk in the bank, the respondent No. 2 committed misconduct, as a result of which, three charges were framed against him. In this behalf, it was alleged that he has misbehaved and pressurized the Manager to mark his presence on the attendance register despite the fact that he had come to the office at 12.30 p.m. The second charge against him was that he has misbehaved with the Manager by hurling abuses on him and the third charge against him was that he has assaulted the Branch Manager with paper weight. The inquiry was conducted by the bank and after conclusion of the inquiry, the respondent No. 2 was awarded punishment of withholding of three increments. This order was challenged by respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court, The Labour Court after entering into reference and after hearing the parties allowed the reference of the workman. The reasons recorded by the Labour Court while exonerating the workman of all the three charges is that on the basis of the evidence recorded a correct finding has not been recorded by the inquiry officer. While rejecting the conclusions of the inquiry officer, it has substituted its own view and has held inquiry to be bad. It was also found that on account of deficient evidence, wrong conclusions have been drawn by the enquiry officer. This order is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Labour Court has no power to re-appreciate the evidence by assuming the power of appellate Court while dealing with the punishment, which is neither dismissal or discharge. It has a limited power to examine the enquiry report only to find out if there has been violation of principles of natural justice or enquiry was initiated by adopting unfair labour practice. In the present case, the labour Court has assumed the jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and in correcting the findings of the enquiry officer, which power it did not have since the punishment imposed was neither dismissal or discharge.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that the Labour Court will not be powerless in case it is found that the inquiry was fair and proper by re-appreciating the evidence even in cases where neither discharge nor order of dismissal has been passed. I have examined the rival contention of the parties.