STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. HIRA LAL DIKSHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the award of the Central Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, dated 30th September, 1972. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the petition are that Hira Lal Dikshit, opposite party No. 1, was employed as a Teller in the State Bank of India, City Branch Office, Kanpur. R.N. Govil was also employed in the said Branch of the Bank. On 19th May, 1960, while the Agent of the Bank of the City Branch Office, Kanpur, was discussing certain matters with the Bank's Head Clerk, Hiralal Dikshit and Govil entered the Agent's room and interfered with the discussion which the Agent was having with the Head Clerk. Opposite party No. 1 as well as Govil shouted at the Agent and assaulted him. A charge sheet was issued against the respondent workman containing four different charges which alleged that the petitioner was guilty of serious misconduct, indiscipline, insubordination and assault on the Agent, opposite party No. 1 furnished his explanation and denied the charges. A domestic enquiry was held into the said perverse. The Tribunal further recorded a positive finding (bat the charges against respondent No. 1 had been fully proved at the domestic enquiry and that the finding of the enquiry officer was not perverse and the workman concerned had been given full opportunity of representation and the enquiry was held in a fair and just manner. The question then arises as to whether after recording the aforesaid findings the Tribunal had jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the management merely on the ground that the punishment of dismissal was excessive. In determining this question it is necessary to refer to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court relating to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunals exercising powers under the Industrial Disputes Act, Prior to 15th December, 1971, there was no express provision in the Act conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal or Labour Court to interfere with the employer's action in discharging or dismissing its workman on the finding of misconduct. Once a proper domestic enquiry was held and the management dismissed the workman on charges of misconduct the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct reinstatement unless the order was passed mala fide. The parliament however amended the Act and enacted section 11-A of the Act which was enforced with effect from 15th December, 1971, conferring express powers on the Labour Court and Tribunals to modify order of discharge and dismissal and to direct dismissal or discharge of the workman on such terms as it considers fit. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not retrospective in its operation, instead it is prospective, it applies only to disputes referred for adjudication on or after the date of its coming into force (15-12-1971). Section 11-A is therefore hot applicable to the instant case as the reference in this case had been made on 20th March, 1971. Though there was no express statutory provision, the Labour Court and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to interfere with the employer's action on the ground of excessive punishment. The Supreme Court laid down the principles with regard to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Courts in directing reinstatement of a workman against whom charges of misconduct may. be found to be proved.

(2.) In Messers Indian Iran and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workman(AIR 1958 SC 130) while considering the powers of the Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that the management of the concern has power to direct its own internal administration and discipline but the power is not unlimited and when a dispute arises the Industrial Tribunals have been given power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief. The Supreme Court further observed:-

(3.) After laying down the aforesaid principles the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of a workman whose services had been terminated by . the employers on the ground of his prejudicial and subversive activities. The principles laid down in the above- case have been affirmed throughout even in later cases. In Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India v. The Management and others,(AIR 1973 SC 1227) the Supreme Court considered the question at length and held that once the misconduct is proved against a workman either in the enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence placed before the Tribunal the punishment imposed against the workman cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimisation. In East India Hotels v. Their Workmen (AIR 1974 SC 696) after considering the question the Supreme Court observed:-