MEHDI HUSSAIN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was an Ex. Military personnel, was appointed as an Armed Guard on January 15, 1970 on temporary basis at Allahabad Branch of State Bank of India. Later on he was selected for the post of Armed Guard and was appointed on substantive basis on probation at the same branch on July 9, 1971. The Bank has asked the petitioner to submit his School Leaving Certificate in proof of his possessing minimum educational qualification for the post and date of birth. The petitioner submitted certificate on July 9, 1971 of principal R.R.K. Higher Secondary School, Palippur, Pratapgarh. On verification the aforesaid certificate submitted by the petitioner was found to be a forged one Vide memo dated December 14, 1971 the petitioner was called upon by the Bank to give his explanation for submitting a forged School Leaving Certificate with a view to obtain appointment in the Bank. On November 20, 1971 the petitioner submitted his explanation. As the petitioner was on probation his services were terminated by the Bank vide order dated February 5, 1972. Agent, State Bank of India, Allahabad Branch on April 4, 1972 has made a report in connection with his forgery to Senior Super-intendent of Police, Allahabad. On this report a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 467/468, 420 and 471, I.P.C. He was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad for the aforesaid offences in Crime Case No. 793.of 1977, State v. Mehdi Hussain. In the criminal case the petitioner was acquitted by the Court on March 23, 1978. After acquittal the petitioner has taken up the matter of termination of his services with the Bank. He sent a letter to the General Manager Operation, State Bank of India, Kanpur and prayed therein that he should be reinstated back in the service and be paid full salary. The Bank vide its letter dated January 2, 1980 informed to the petitioner again that his services were terminated on February 5, 1972. The petitioner thereafter raised an industrial dispute and the Govt. of India vide its order dated May 28, 1982 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur. The Tribunal has decided the reference vide its award dated Nil and the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from February 5, 1972 has been held to be justified. This award was communicated to the petitioner by the Central Govt. vide its letter dated November 22, 1984. The award has been published under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This award of the Tribunal has been questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition.

(2.) Shri S.A. Zilani, learned counsel for the petitioner first of all submitted that the order of termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 is illegal as the same has been made in violation of the provisions of the Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Shri Zilani has next argued that the order of the termination is punitive in nature and has been passed by way of punishment without holding any enquiry in the matter and as such is void and inoperative. He has further argued that order of termination has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and this order does not contain any reasons for discharge of the petitioner from the services of the Bank. Lastly, Shri S.A. Zilani submitted that in criminal case on the same charges the petitioner has been acquitted but judgment of the criminal court was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. He cited the following cases in support of his arguments: Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh (1990-II-LLJ-70)(SC); Hari Mohan Rastogi v. Labour Court (1984-I-LLJ-32)(SC); Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd. (1981-II-LLJ-70)(SC) ; The State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money (1976-I-LLJ-478)(SC); L. Robert D'souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern, Railway, (1982-I-LLJ-330)(SC), Management of Karnataka S.R.T. Corpn v. M. Boraiah, (1984- I-LLJ-110)(SC); Sant Raj v. O.P. Singla (1985- II-LLJ-19)(SC); Chandu Lal v. Management of M/s, Pan American World Airways, Inc., (1985-II-LLJ-181)(SC). Chief Engineer, RSEBV Judge Additional Labour Court (Rajasthan) -1990(61)FLR 647 (SC).

(3.) On the other hand Shri Yaswant Varma, learned counsel appearing for the Bank has argued that the petitioner has not raised the ground before the Tribunal that his services were terminated without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act 1947. The petitioner had not worked for 240 days in 12 months preceding the date of termination and as such provisions as contained in Section 25-F were not complied with. It is submitted by Shri Verma that it is a case of simpliciter, discharge of probationer without casting any stigma. As the case of the petitioner is only of discharge simpliciter of a probationer, there was no question of giving of a hearing to him before termination of his services. He further argued that it is a case where the petitioner has made attempt to get the employment on a forged document. He has already attained the age of 60 years on June 17, 1989, and it is a case of loss of confidence as such the relief of reinstatement with full backwages should not be granted in favour of the petitioner. Lastly, he argued that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute after six years of his termination of services and reference has been made on May 25, 1972 i.e. after ten years and as such he is not entitled for any wages for this period. In support of his arguments Shri Verma placed reliance on decisions in the case of Unit Trust of India v. T. Vijaya Kumar, (1993-I- LLJ-240), Purshottam Das Dingra v. U.O.I. AIR 1963 SC 1914 (sic) and The State of Punjab v. Sukhraj Bahadur (1970-I-LLJ-373)(SC).