Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.11A – Powers of the labour court, tribunals – Allegations against the respondent-dufterycum-cash posted in the Bank that he benefitted on account of misconduct/irregular loan sanction – In the preliminary enquiry respondent admitted that certain loans were availed by coercing the manager and without obtaining any sanction from the Controlling Officer and accepted making unauthorized entries in the bank accounts, thereby tampering with the official records – Charges stood proved in the enquiry, by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate authority and punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent – Industrial tribunal found that the enquiry was fair, however in the final award directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent without back wages – Final award upheld by the High Court – Sustainability:
Held: Order passed by the tribunal as well as the High Court not sustainable – Tribunal as well as the High Court failed to take into consideration the settled principal of law in respect of judicial review in disciplinary matters – High Court while adding its irrelevant reasons, confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal acted in a manner as if it was hearing an appeal against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it failed to take into account that in the departmental proceedings strict rules of evidence, as applicable in the judicial proceedings, cannot be applied and a charge of misconduct is to be proved only on preponderance of probabilities – Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority took into consideration the evidence available on record and had come to the conclusion that the respondent was found guilty on the charges levelled against him – Appellate Authority had also revisited the evidence and concurred with the Disciplinary Authority – After careful scrutiny of their order, it cannot be said that the orders were based on no evidence or are perverse in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence – Tribunal acted as an Appellate Authority and despite concluding that it is highly possible that the irregularities as alleged in the chargesheet were committed by the manager at the insistence of the Respondent, and he was the direct beneficiary of the irregular loan sanction, had illegally interfered with the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority – Compulsory retirement of an employee from the services does not mean that the employee is not entitled to retirement benefits, which can only be denied in a case of dismissal from service – Impugned order passed by the tribunal as well as the High Court set aside – However, as punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed upon the respondent, he is entitled for gratuity and other pensionary benefits in accordance with law. [Paras 30, 34, 39-41]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.