REGIONAL MANAGER BANK OF INDIA Vs. PRECIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT KANPUR NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against a Labour Court award dated May 3, 1997 reinstating the respondent workman in service with continuity and back wages.

(2.) The respondent workman was employed as a Special Assistant in the Sandila Branch of the petitioner bank, which is a Public Sector Bank. On the detection of a fraud, he was placed under suspension on April 16, 1988 and after a fact finding enquiry, a full fledged disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge sheet dated March 28, 1989 was served on the workman. The substance of the charge was that the workman had managed to get a cheque book issued on August 3, 1987 for a savings account standing in the name of one K.K. Jaiswal on the basis of a forged requisition slip. Using two cheque leaves of the said cheque book and after forging the signature of the customer the workman managed to withdraw Rs. 9,000 and Rs. 17,000 from the said account on August 6, 1987 and in spite of complaint no action was taken by him. The Staff Officer in the Zonal Office was appointed the Enquiry Officer. The management produced 13 witnesses to prove their case while the workman produced 2 witnesses. After due opportunity to the parties, the Enquiry Officer found first charge to be proved while the second charge was only partly proved and he forwarded the report to the Regional Manager. After furnishing a copy of the report to the workman a show cause notice was issued seeking his explanation and after hearing him an order of termination dated March 14, 1991 was passed. The workman preferred a departmental appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated July 9, 1991 after granting personal hearing to him. Nevertheless, he approached the Conciliation Officer and on a failure report, the Central Government referred the dispute vide order dated March 26, 1993 under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal which registered it as Industrial Dispute No. 37 of 1993. The parties filed their respective written statements. The management moved an application dated May 30, 1996 with a prayer that in case it was found that the enquiry was vitiated in any manner, they may be allowed to lead evidence to prove the charge. Though the Tribunal held that the enquiry was vitiated, it refused to grant opportunity to the petitioner bank to prove the charge on the ground that it would be futile and, by the impugned award it exonerated the respondent-workman.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the Tribunal erred in denying an opportunity to the petitioner-Bank to prove the charges before it even though it held that the enquiry was vitiated. He has also urged that the finding that the Enquiry Officer had considered the statements recorded during fact finding enquiry was perverse.