Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 593 (ORI)

MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA v. S. N. DORA

2016-08-03

K.R.MOHAPATRA, SANJU PANDA

body2016
JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - W.P.(C) No.15295 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner-the Management of State Bank of India, assailing the award dated 19.01.2015 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 91 of 2001 in granting compensation to the tune of rupees twenty five lakhs. 2. W.P.(C) No. 2715 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner-Workman to modify the award dated 19.01.2015 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 91 of 2001. 3. Since in both the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the self same award dated 19.01.2015, both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. 4. The brief facts as are delineated in both the writ petitions tend to reveal thus : Satya Narayan Dora, hereinafter to be referred as the Workman', who is the sole opposite party in W.P.(C) No.15295 of 2015 and petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2715, was appointed as Clerk-Cum-Typist (C.C.T.) in the State Bank of India, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Management'. While serving there he was placed under suspension on the advice of the C.B.I. Bhubaneswar in relation to a case involving fraud of bank's money. Thereafter necessary charges were framed against the Workman resulting conduct of domestic enquiry. In the said enquiry the Workman was found guilty and he was dismissed from service with effect from 17.02.1990. He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority of the State Bank of India and the same was rejected. Thereafter he raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar challenging the order of dismissal. On failure of the conciliation, the Ministry of Labour & Employment in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947, vide their letter dated 28.08.1991, referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The same was registered as Industrial Dispute Case No. 30 of 1991 (Central). The term of reference was as follows : "Whether the action of the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar in dismissing Shri Satya Narayan Dora, C.C.T. from service with effect from 17.02.90 is legal and justified? The same was registered as Industrial Dispute Case No. 30 of 1991 (Central). The term of reference was as follows : "Whether the action of the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar in dismissing Shri Satya Narayan Dora, C.C.T. from service with effect from 17.02.90 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled to ?" The Tribunal passed an order on 18.10.1997 in the aforesaid Industrial Dispute Case and came to a finding that the Workman had not been afforded with reasonable opportunity and the enquiry "conducted against the Workman was not fair and proper. However, the Tribunal gave liberty to the Management to place additional witness, if any, to justify the order of dismissal. The Management challenged such order before this Court in OJC No. 16529 of 1997, which was disposed of on 06.05.2008 with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of I.D. Case No. 30 of 1991 (Central) on its own merit and in accordance with law without being influenced by any finding or observation, made in order dated 18.10.1997. As the matter was pending since 1991, the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of production of the copy of the order. However, after creation of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar the matter was transferred to the said Tribunal and registered as Tr. I.D. Case No. 91/2001. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.09.2009 disposed of the said case directing the Management to reinstate the Workman in his former post with 50% back wages. The order dated 21.09.2009 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Tr. I.D. Case No. 91/2001 was again assailed by the Management before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 19687 of 2009, which was dismissed for default on 12.03.2013 and thereafter restored pursuant to the order passed in W.A. No. 77 of 2013. However, after restoration of W.P.(C) No. 19687 of 2009, the said writ petition was disposed of on 22.01.2014. In the said order, this Court set aside the award dated 21.04.2009 passed in Tr. I.D. Case No.91 of 2001 and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to pass order afresh taking into consideration all evidences led by the parties before the Tribunal including those in relation to the merits of the charge after hearing arguments from the parties. In the said order, this Court set aside the award dated 21.04.2009 passed in Tr. I.D. Case No.91 of 2001 and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to pass order afresh taking into consideration all evidences led by the parties before the Tribunal including those in relation to the merits of the charge after hearing arguments from the parties. No party was permitted to lead any further evidence. 5. After remittance of the matter from this Court, the Tribunal took up Tr. I.D. Case No. 91 of 2001 and disposed of the same vide order Award dated 19.01.2015. Before the Tribunal, the Workman contended that the initiation of domestic enquiry against him was basing on false allegation that he had committed the said fraud in corrupt collusion with one Shri Raj Kishore Barik, the messenger of the bank by fabricating the 'Mail Transfer' issued from Kolkatta Branch in the names of Shri Manoj Kumar Das. He has also contended that the charges were framed against him in an illegal and unjustified manner. In the said enquiry, the Management with an ill intention declared the Workman as guilty and dismissed him from service with effect from 17.02.1990. The enquiry was not conducted fairly and he was not provided with sufficient opportunity to defend himself and as such the action of the Management was liable to be set aside. The Workman examined himself as the Workman Witness and proved certain documents marked as Ext. A to G. The Management however filed its written statement denying the averments made by the Workman.' It also examined 6 (six) Witnesses and proved documents marked as Ext. 1 to 14/1. Considering the contentions raised by the Workman and the written statement filed by the Management, the Tribunal framed three issues such as: 1. Is the domestic enquiry conducted against the Workman fair and proper? 2. Is the action of the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, in dismissing the Workman from service w.e.f. 17.02.1990 legal and justified ? 3. To what relief, the Workman is entitled to ? While answering Issue no.1, the Tribunal found that the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the Workman is not fair and proper. With regard to issue no.2, the Tribunal found that the action of the Management is not legal and justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service of the Workman with effect from 17.02.1990. While answering Issue no.1, the Tribunal found that the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the Workman is not fair and proper. With regard to issue no.2, the Tribunal found that the action of the Management is not legal and justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service of the Workman with effect from 17.02.1990. While answering issue no.3, the Tribunal directed the Management to pay an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs (rupees twenty five lakhs) towards compensation to the Workman. It further directed the Management to pay 50% of back wages to the Workman with effect from the date of his dismissal, i.e. 17.02.1990 till the date of his retirement on superannuation, i.e. 28.02.2013. The Award was directed to be implemented within three months from the date of publication of the award in the Gazette of India, failing which the Management shall pay simple interest @ 12% per annum) to the Workman. 6. The Management challenged such Award dated 19.01.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 15295 of 2015 and prayed for quashing of the same. On the other hand the Workman challenged such Award in W.P.(C) No. 2715 of 2016 on the ground of inadequate relief granted by the Tribunal and prayed for enhancement of the compensation and payment of full wages. As such, the Award dated 19.01.2015 passed in Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 91 of 2001 is impugned in both the writ petitions. 7. The Management has assailed the said order on the ground that the impugned Award suffers from serious legal infirmities and non-application of mind. The award is based on misreading of "record and non-appreciation of the law as well as correct facts. The further ground has been taken that the Tribunal completely misinterpreted and ignored the direction of this Court dated 06.05.2008" passed in W.P.(C) No. 16529 of 1997. 8. Learned counsel for the Management submitted that the finding of the Tribunal dated 18.10.1997 was interfered with by this Court in its order dated 06.05.2008 passed in OJC No. 16529 of 1997. This Court directed the Tribunal to decide the matter without being influenced by the finding or observation made on 18.10.1997. However, in the impugned Award without verifying the documents, evidence and the material available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal only accepted the finding dated 18.10.1997. This Court directed the Tribunal to decide the matter without being influenced by the finding or observation made on 18.10.1997. However, in the impugned Award without verifying the documents, evidence and the material available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal only accepted the finding dated 18.10.1997. He further submitted that this Court vide order dated 22.01.2014 passed W.P.(C) No. 19687 of 2009 though quashed the reinstatement of the Workman with 50% back wages and directed to pass order afresh taking into consideration all evidences led by the parties including those in relation to the merits of the charge, after hearing arguments from the parties, the Tribunal without going through the same, accepted its finding dated 18.10.1997 and proceeded with the matter. According to learned counsel for the Management, arriving at the award of Rs. 25.00 lakhs towards compensation is without jurisdiction, beyond the pleadings, beyond the evidence, beyond the reference and not being supported by materials on record or any reasons. The award or direction of the Tribunal is bound to be supported by reasons. When the claim of the petitioner is to set aside the order of termination and for his reinstatement with back wages and consequential service and financial benefits, the award of compensation is whimsical and based on no legal reasoning. The Tribunal has to give finding on legal reasoning and the same must be supported by legitimate conclusions. Misplaced compassion or sympathy or generosity or private benevolence are not to decide the matter. According to him compensation has a definite meaning in law and the reason of such compensation must be a cogent and valid reason and not based on whims and caprice. When discretionary remedy is granted, the same should also be based on reasons and foundation must be laid for the same. In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the Management cited the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Court. According to him in the case of Rathi Menon v. Union of India reported in 2001 (3) SCC 714 and in the case of Pohla Singh alias Pohla Ram (D) By Lrs. And others v. State of Punjab and others reported in 2004 (6) SCC 126 , where compensation word was used but the parameters are not satisfactory, the same has been denied. And others v. State of Punjab and others reported in 2004 (6) SCC 126 , where compensation word was used but the parameters are not satisfactory, the same has been denied. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 , he submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that rule of reason is an integral part of natural justice and for that no Court or Tribunal, judicial or quasi judicial authority can pass any direction or give any observation without reasons.' The reasons must be cogent and valid reasons and no findings should be based on whims and caprice. The said principle has also been followed in the case of Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India and others reported in 2006 (10) SCC 1 . 9. Learned counsel for the Workman, on the other hand submitted that when the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the inquiry conducted against the Workman is not fair and proper and the Management is not legal and justified in imposing' the punishment of dismissal from service of the Workman, the Tribunal ought to have granted full wages and allowances and all other privileges to the petitioner. He further submitted that considering the loss of social status and devastation of his family and considering the position that in the event the Workman would have continued in service, he would have become a senior officer by the time of retirement and could have earned a huge amount towards pay and allowances and other service benefits, the award of compensation of Rs.25.00 Lakhs is inadequate. The amount of Rs.25.00 Lakhs therefore,' deserves to be 'enhanced. Accordingly he prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount to rupees one Crore. In replying to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Management, he submitted that the Tribunal thoroughly going through the evidences and verifying the materials on record came to the finding that the enquiry conducted against the Workman is not fair and proper and imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is not legal and justified. The Management has sought to re-open the issue which have already been attained finality by this Court in OJC No. 16529 of 1997 and W.P.(C) No. 19687 of 2009. The Management has sought to re-open the issue which have already been attained finality by this Court in OJC No. 16529 of 1997 and W.P.(C) No. 19687 of 2009. According to him the CBI has submitted the final report and dropped the criminal case against the petitioner and as such in terms of the provisions of Sastry and Desai Award, the departmental proceeding had no justification after discharge from the Criminal Case. With regard to grant of full wages, learned counsel for the Workman relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed) and Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 . His further contention was that the workman is entitled to the compensation amount as because, in case he would have been reinstated in the service, he would have got all the consequential service benefits, i.e. increments, promotions etc. 10. On hearing the rival statement of the parties and after going through the records, it reveals that since the date of superannuation of the workman was 28.02.2013, the question of his reinstatement does not arise. There is no dispute that even if a person is exonerated in a criminal proceeding, the departmental proceeding can be initiated under the Service Jurisdiction and it has to come to its logical end. Therefore, the contention of the workman that since he has been exonerated from all the charges in the criminal proceeding, the departmental proceeding should not have been initiated, is fallacious. With regard to the award of compensation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon v. Union of India reported in 2001 (3) SCC 714 at paragraph-24 held thus : "In this context a reference to Section 129 of the Act appears useful. The Central Government is empowered by the said provision to make rules by notification "to carry out the purposes of this Chapter: 'It is evident that one of the purposes of this chapter is that the injured victims in railway accidents and untoward incidents must get compensation. Though the word "compensation" is not defined in the Act or in the Rules it is the giving of an equivalent or substitute of equivalent value. Though the word "compensation" is not defined in the Act or in the Rules it is the giving of an equivalent or substitute of equivalent value. In Black's Law Dictionary, "compensation" is shown as "equivalent in money for a loss sustained; or giving back an equivalent in either money which is but the measure of value, or in actual value otherwise conferred; or recompense in value for some loss, injury or service especially when it is given by statute." In the case of LIC of India v. R. Dhandapani, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 613, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraphs-8 and 9 observed as follows : "In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well-meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. (See Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. VA. Unnikrishnan.) Though under Section 11-A, the Tribunal has the power to reduce the quantum of punishment it has to be done within the parameters of law. Possession of power is itself not sufficient; it has to be exercised in accordance with law." 11. In view of the above settled position of law, as it appears from the impugned award, the Tribunal has not gone into the aforesaid principle while awarding compensation. The compensation was awarded without any materials available on record and without giving any reason, As such the award of compensation being not sustainable, we set aside the same and modify the award accordingly. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. K.R. Mohapatra, J. - I agree. Final Result : Disposed Of