VANDANA JOSHI Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 17th December, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 975 of 2009 whereby, the respondent's petition was allowed by setting-aside the Industrial Tribunal's award dated 22nd January, 2009. Consequently, the reference CGIT 2/37 of 2007 came to be dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows : The appellant in pursuance of the personal interview conducted by a Panel of office-bearers of the respondent was offered appointment as Personal Financial Consultant by letter dated 27th April, 2006. The appellant accepted the assignment and communicated her acceptance to the respondent on 28th April, 2006 and accordingly she was appointed vide letter of appointment dated 2nd May, 2006 on a permanent post on a guaranteed Pay of Rs. 2,80,000/- per annum. The letter of appointment stipulated that the appellant was being placed in the management cadre of the respondent at Band 8-B. The addendum to the letter of appointment contained a declaration that the appellant had read and accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment. The service of the appellant, however, was terminated by letter dated 23rd June, 2006 issued under the signature of Associate Manager, Human Resources on account of improper behaviour and conduct with the customer, Line Manager and fellow colleagues.

(3.) The appellant took us through her statement of claim, written statement of the respondent and evidence of herself as well as that of the witnesses of the respondent. She submitted that the nature of her duties was not related either to marketing or sales and that she was not doing any work of managerial nature. She further submitted that the work which was being rendered by her was related to customer service. The work involved data entry which fell within the description of clerical nature within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She invited our attention to the admissions of the witnesses of the respondent during their cross-examination to substantiate her case that she is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. She also submitted that the duties and key responsibilities of the employees appointed in Bands 8-A and 8-B, 9-A and 9B are similar and therefore, on the basis of these duties, she cannot be said to have been working in the management cadre. She submitted that the burden of proof that she is not a workman lies on the respondent and the said burden is not satisfactorily discharged by them. She further submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could not have disturbed the finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on the record. In order to substantiate the above contentions, the appellant relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. vs. State of Saurashtra, 1957 AIR(SC) 264, decision dated 5th January, 2010 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 6966/2009 in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corp, decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. R. S. Bhatia (dead) through L.Rs., 1975 AIR(SC) 1898, a decision of Supreme Court dated 5th June, 1985 in Civil Appeal No. 2638 of 1980 in Arkal Govind Raj Rao vs. M/s Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., Bombay, decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kamataka Bank Ltd. vs. Sunita B. VatsarafSmt.,2007 2 CLR 650 and decision of the learned Single Judge in Aloysius Nunes vs. M/s Thomas Cook India Ltd., 2000 3 MhLJ 404.