CHAIRMAN, DENA BANK Vs. VIJAY KANDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioning bank was the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent, an employee of the Bank, for declaration and mandatory injunction for setting aside an administrative order inflicting penalty on the plaintiff-respondent under Section 6(E) of the Bipartite Agreement as a result of a domestic inquiry held against the respondent for misconduct. The respondent was brought down by the penalty order to a lower stage in the scale of pay up to a maximum of two stages i.e. from Rs. 13210/- to Rs. 11,680/-. It was, however, ordered that the employee would continue to get stagnation increment, FPA and PQA in the reduced basic pay. It was further ordered that he would not be entitled to salary and wages for the days he remained on unauthorized leave. The respondent was advised that in case he felt aggrieved by the order, he could prefer an appeal within 45 days to the competent authority. The order was passed on 16th September, 2007. On receiving notice of the suit the defendant bank filed an application under order 7 rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that bank staff are governed by the provisions of the Bipartite Agreement signed between the management and the workman and the disputes, if any, can be dealt with only under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was prayed that the plaint be rejected for want of maintainability before the civil court.

(2.) The respondent workman resisted the application and contended that the suit was maintainable since the inquiry conducted against him which led to the penalty order was neither fair nor proper and he was not given a chance to cross examine witnesses produced against him nor was he provided with any person to defend himself. Therefore, the penalty order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The trial court rejected the application vide order dated 21st September, 2013.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.