UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. SIDHARTHA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Shri Sidhartha Chakraborty was working as a Cash Clerk in the commercial wing of the appellant Bank at Uluban, Guwahati. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for commission of irregularities and accordingly, charge sheet was served on him on different counts relatable to fictitious debit entries in some savings bank accounts resulting in misappropriation. On conclusion of the departmental proceedings, accepting the findings of the enquiry the respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated December 20, 1985. It was indicated in the dismissal order that in view of the pendency of an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central Kolkata, an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was being filed for approval of the action taken by the appellant Bank. The respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati for his reinstatement with full back wages challenging the legality and validity of the order of dismissal. Eventually, on failure of the re-conciliation.proceedings, the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal at Guwahati. The reference as on the question of legality and validity of the order of dismissal pending proceedings in the Labour Court for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Tribunal, on conclusion of the proceedings, held that the enquiry was in full compliance of the prescribed procedures and the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the imposition of the punishment of dismissal in view of the series of misappropriation and irregularities is justified.

(2.) Aggrieved, the respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 635 of 2001 controverting the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 12(C) of 1997 passed on January 20, 2000.

(3.) It would appear that the questions raised by the respondent-petitioner before the learned single Judge was whether the appellant Bank had infact filed any application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the action taken by them in dismissing the respondent. The appellant Bank, alternately, contended that the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not mandatory as held in Punjab Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh v. Suresh Chand & Anr. reported in AIR 1978 SC 995 : 1978 (2) SCC 144 : 1978-II-LLJ-1 which was the law at the time when the impugned action was taken by the appellant Bank and, therefore, the subsequent decision in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors. reported in AIR 2002 SC 643 : 2002 (2) SCC 244 : 1978-I-LLJ-834 overruling the aforesaid decision in Punjab Beverages (supra) cannot have any application to unsettle the impugned action on the principles of Doctrine of Prospective Over-Ruling. It was further contended that the respondent employee having admitted the financial irregularities in a large scale deserved other punishment than dismissal.