MANAGEMENT OF STATE OF INDIA Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Are Labour Courts/Tribunals empowered to declare disciplinary action taken against a workman abinitiovold and, without examining the matter further, set aside the punishment imposed on such a workman by his employer, solely on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report had not been furnished and an opportunity to submit his objections thereto has been denied to the delinquent workman? This is the question which falls for consideration in this writ petition.

(2.) The facts, to the extent necessary, are that the Government of India, vide proceedings dated 10-7-1991, referred the following dispute between the management of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer') and their workmen to the Industrial Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal'), for adjudication:

(3.) Sri Barnala Sankara Rao (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') was appointed in the State Bank of India, Amadalavalasa Branch, as a Messenger on 1-5-1967. He was transferred on 31-7-1971 to Parvatipuram Branch. By order dated 21-9-1972 the workman was placed under suspension on the allegation that, on 7-9-1971, he had surreptitiously removed one section containing one hundred currency notes of rupees ten. A charge sheet was issued on 19-12-1973 to which the workman submitted his reply denying the charges. The disciplinary authority ordered enquiry and appointed an enquiry officer. Questioning the said action, the workman filed a suit in O.S.No.33/74 before the Subordinate Judge, Parvatipuram which was dismissed on 31-7-1979. Against the said order, the workman filed A.S.No.51/79 before the Sub- Judge, Parvathipuram, which was also dismissed on 6-4-1985. Thereafter the domestic enquiry commenced and was held on 15th June, 26th June and 3rd July, 1985. In the domestic enquiry, on behalf of the management, four documents were marked as exhibits and five witnesses were examined. The workman was allowed to be represented by a co-employee as his defence representative. The workman examined himself as a defence witness. The enquiry officer, vide proceedings dated 9-8-1985, held that the charges levelled against the workman had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The disciplinary authority, vide proceedings dated 30-9-1985, differed with the conclusion of the enquiry officer and held that the workman was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Since the misconduct was serious and it had been proved that the workman was a person of questionable/doubtful integrity and such a person had no place in financial organizations like banks, the disciplinary authority, vide proceedings dated 30-9-1985, tentatively proposed imposition of punishment of dismissal from service. The workman, while being informed that he was entitled to a personal hearing on the proposed punishment and that he could appear before the disciplinary authority within two weeks, was asked to show cause as to why appropriate punishment should not be imposed for the misconduct. During the course of personal hearing the workman submitted a written statement, on 25-10-1985, which was taken into consideration. While holding that the workman was guilty of the charge levelled against him, that the act of misconduct committed by him was prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, that the workman whose integrity was doubtful had no place in a financial organization like a bank and that he deserved punishment of dismissal from bank service, taking into account his long service in the Bank and to afford him an opportunity to reform himself to give better service in future, the disciplinary authority vide proceedings dated 14-8-1985 took a lenient view of his misconduct and decided to reduce the punishment to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The disciplinary authority also held that there was no case to treat any part of the period spent by the workman under suspension as on duty and that he would not be eligible for receipt of any salary and allowance for that period apart from what had already been paid to him by way of subsistence allowance.