Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 992 (ALL)

GRINDLAYS BANK, KANPUR v. UNION OF INDIA

2007-04-17

RAKESH TIWARI

body2007
RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Gounsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed by grindlays Bank, M. G. Marg, Kanpur challenging the validity and correctness, of the impugned award dated August 31, 1984 passed by the Gentral Government Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. ( 2 ) THE workman respondent No. 3 was employed as Clerk in the Kanpur branch of the petitioner bank. He was charged with gross misconduct and indulged in riotous and disorderly behaviour with the customer of the bank in the banking hall on December 27, 1975 and failed to show proper courtesy towards a customer who had come to make an enquiry and when he complained of lack of Courtesy, the petitioner shouted at him and used abusive language against the customer and also attempted to physically assault him when he came to the officer-in-charge to express his grievance. The enquiry was instituted against the petitioner. The Enquiry officer submitted his report dated June 12, 1976 returning the findings that the charges against the workman has been fully established. ( 3 ) THE Manager and the Authority nominated and empowered to pass the order of punishment, issued notice to the workman to show cause why punishment of stoppage of one increment should not be imposed against him for the acts of gross-misconduct established against him in the enquiry. The Punishing authority therefore, upheld the findings of the enquiry Officer and imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of 12 months i. e. the postponing all the future increments of the workman to a period of 12 months. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Central Government vide reference order dated March, 1979. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the following dispute was referred to the Central government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court, Kanpur. "whether the action of the management of grindlays Bank Limited Kanpur in imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 12 months with the effect of postponing all future increments by a period of 12 months on Sri Ramesh chandra Sriyastava, Clerk Kanpur Branch of the Bank is justified? If not to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?" ( 5 ) STATEMENTS and rejoinder were exchanged. On the pleadings of the parties the following additional issues were framed: 1. If not to what relief is the workman concerned entitled?" ( 5 ) STATEMENTS and rejoinder were exchanged. On the pleadings of the parties the following additional issues were framed: 1. Whether dispute is an industrial dispute? Its effect? 2. Whether a dispute has been properly espoused? If not, its effect? 3. In case the enquiry is vitiated whether the employer reserve the right to prove the charges before the Court, as an order of reference? 4. Whether the enquiry is valid as alleged? ( 6 ) ISSUE No. 1 was decided holding that it is a matter of common knowledge that under the industrial Disputes Act only individual dispute could be raised under Section 2-A and that too in case of a discharge, dismissal, termination or retrenchment of an individual workman; the word their appearing before the workman shows that it was mistake that word workman was typed out and the intention was to put a plural word after word "their" i. e. workman. As regards issue No. 2 the Labour Court relying upon the cases of Express Newspaper (P) Ltd v. First Labour Court, Calcutta 1959-I-LLJ-600 (Cal)and Sadhu Ram v. D. T. C. AIR 1984 SC 1467 : (1983) 4 SCC 156 : 1983-II-LLJ-383 held that the dispute was properly espoused. With regard to issue No. 3 the Court held that in the instant case the proceedings started as early as in 1978 and it would be unjust to permit the employers to substantiate the charge now after a lapse of more than six years. With regard to issue No. 4 the Court held that in view of the contradictions it was not safe to rely on the testimony of Sri Bal Ram Singh in the absence of the complainant who would have been the best witness of the incident. Thus the enquiry report appears to be biased and cannot be said to be valid and fair. The Court concluded in the award that the action of the management of Grindlays Bank, Kanpur imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 12 months i. e. the postponing of future increment of a period of 12 months of workman, R. C. Srivastava, Clerk, Kanpur branch is not justified and he is entitled to all back increments withheld and to recover the balance amount due. ( 7 ) THE award was enforced by publication on September 15, 1984. ( 7 ) THE award was enforced by publication on September 15, 1984. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government published the award of the Central Government Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Grindlays Bank Limited, Kanpur and their workmen. The counsel for the respondent workman submits that the workman has been working and the award has been implemented, hence this Court may not interfere in findings of facts recorded by the tribunal particularly when the Management has failed to prove its case before the Labour court in 1984 now after about 23 years. ( 8 ) THE counsel for the Bank submits that the award given by the Industrial Tribunal is not justified as is apparent from the record that the bank had taken a lenient view in the matter of awarding punishment to the workman and instead of dismissing him from service for major misconduct only punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 12 months i. e. the postponing of future increment for a period of 12 months had been awarded though the workman had abused a customer of the bank in the bank and had threatened to assault him which was prevented by other persons present in the bank. He has vehemently urged that the industrial Tribunal has gone out of the way and has illegally interfered in the punishment awarded to the workman by the Management. The counsel for the respondent workman has submitted that the Management has failed to prove its case before the Labour Court and has also failed to produce the customer as a witness who is said to have been abused by the, petitioner and whom it is said that the petitioner had threatened and assaulted. ( 9 ) THE Labour Court has given a categorical finding that the employer has failed to substantiate the charges and in the circumstances holding that the workman is entitled to all back increments withheld and to recover the balance amount due. Moreover, now the award stands implemented, as this argument of the counsel for the respondents has not been denied by the counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, now the award stands implemented, as this argument of the counsel for the respondents has not been denied by the counsel for the petitioner. ( 10 ) SINCE the Labour Court has come to the finding that the Management has failed to substantiate the charges after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and the fact that the Bank did not produce the customer who was the important witness as he is said to have been abused, threatened and assaulted by the petitioner, no case for interference in the impugned award of the labour Court is made out. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.