KARNATAKA BANK LTD Vs. SUNITA B VATSARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement of a learned Single Judge of This Court dated 3rd March 1999 allowing the Writ Petition No. 225 of 1995 filed by the respondent and thereby quashing the award dated 4th July 1994 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal No. 1.

(2.) Facts stated in brief are that the respondent No. 1 (for short "the respondent") joined the appellant bank as a trainee in December 1979 and was promoted as an officer (Grade 3) in May 1978 on basic salary of Rs. 2700/-. The respondent accepted the promotion and reported for duty at the Bandra branch of the appellant as the second highest officer after the Branch Manager. On 24th May 1978 a power of attorney was executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent conferring upon her managerial and administrative powers. The respondent functioned as an Officer at the Bandra branch till December 1981, when she proceeded on leave. She resumed duty in February 1982, and on transfer of the then branch manager Mr.Satish Rao, she officiated as the manager of the Bandra branch from March 1982 till new manager took charge. The new manager of the branch, Mr.Udupa, on Page 1214 assuming charge discovered several lapses on the part of the respondent in discharge of her duties. He found that in collusion with the former manager Mr.Satish Rao the respondent had given unauthorised accommodation to four different customers viz. 1) General Trading Agency 2) Bharat Corporation, 3)Pukhraj & Co. and 4) K.M. Corporation. Mr.Udupa,therefore reported the matter to the head office which called her explanation. As the explanation was found unsatisfactory a charge-sheet was issued to her in February 1983. In the domestic enquiry that followed she was found guilty. After a show cause notice and after considering her rely, by an order dated 16th October 1984, services of the respondent were terminated. The dispute raised by the respondent regarding her termination under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was referred by the government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") for adjudication. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties the tribunal held that the respondent was an officer employed in the managerial and administrative capacity and was also supervising the work of the subordinates and was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act and therefore the reference was not maintainable. The tribunal also considered the respondents case on merits and held that the enquiry conducted into the misconduct of the respondent was legal, fair and proper and the finding of culpability reached by the enquiry officer was proper and correct and the termination of the respondent from service was justifiable. In this view of the matter the tribunal dismissed the claim of the respondent for reinstatement. Aggrieved respondent challenged the decision of the tribunal by filing a writ petition in This Court. A learned Single Judge of This Court by his judgement dated 3rd March 1999 reversed the finding of fact recorded by the tribunal that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The learned Single Judge held that though the respondent was designated as an officer and was entrusted with various managerial powers as per the power of attorney dated 24th May 1978 she in fact was required to carry out the work of clerical nature. The learned Single Judge further held that mere designation of the respondent as an officer was not conclusive whether she was performing managerial or administrative functions and was employed in a supervisory capacity and that the tribunal had misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence in that regard. In this view of the matter the learned Single Judge set aside the award and remanded the matter back to the tribunal for consideration again on merits whether the domestic enquiry was fair, proper and just and whether the order of dismissal was just and legal. That judgement is impugned in this appeal.

(3.) Mr.Shetty, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that after careful consideration and proper appreciation of the evidence on record and after proper analysis of the nature of the work performed by the appellant and the power of attorney given to her the tribunal had held that the respondent was employed in the managerial and administrative capacity and was supervising the work of subordinates. The finding reached by the tribunal in that regard was based on preponderance of evidence adduced before it, and in any event a possible finding of fact. Learned Single Judge exercising the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution Page 1215 of India was not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and was not entitled to set aside a possible finding of fact which was not in any way perverse. In support of the submission Mr.Shetty referred to and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Mustafa & Najibai Trading Co.