Sushil Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1118/1999
Petitioner: Sushil Kumar Verma
Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1118/1999
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 01, 2001
Head Note:
LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL LAWS
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Sections 10, 11 with Constitution – Articles 226, 136 – Bank employee penalised for misappropriation of amount given by customer for deposit – Complaint by customer – Later complaint withdrawn – Still enquiry held and penalty imposed – Labour dispute raised – Labour Court receiving evidence and holding enquiry to be vitiated – Bank Manager examined, who admitted deposit of money by customer who came to withdraw complaint – Said customer not examined. Held that Labour Court was justified in setting aside penalty. High Court erred while reappraising evidence. High Court’s orders set aside. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. A complaint was lodged on 21.4.1988 against the appellant by one Lakhan Singh who is a customer of the Bank that he went to the Bank at 4.00 p.m.
on 31.8.1987 to deposit a sum of Rs. 3500/- and gave the said amount to the appellant who also belongs to his village to deposit the said money. However, he had not deposited the said amount and when he got a notice from the Bank as to why he has not deposited the amount he made the complaint. Later on the said complaint was withdrawn. However, the Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and after holding inquiry came to the conclusion that he is guilty of the charges framed against him in not having deposited the amount given by Lakhan Singh in due time and therefore withheld four increments with cumulative effect. Against that action a dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The Labour Court on examination of the material before it, came to the conclusion that the inquiry held by the respondents is vitiated and called upon the Bank to adduce evidence in support of its case. The Bank examined its then manager who stated that he had received a complaint from Lakhan Singh and showed a receipt also in the handwriting of the appellant for having received a sum of Rs. 3500/- and that
the appellant deposited the sum of Rs. 3500/- on 23.4.1988. However, in the cross examination it is stated that on 23.4.1988 Lakhan Singh came to withdraw the complaint and deposited Rs. 3500/-.
2. The Labour Court felt that the complaint made by Lakhan Singh having been withdrawn, adequate proof was required as to what charge is levelled against the appellant as to misappropriation of the said amount of Rs. 3500/- and that charge was not estab-lished in the absence of evidence of Lakhan Singh and set aside the action taken by the Bank.
3. A writ petition was carried against the award and the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the Labour Court had held that the inquiry was fair but the findings recorded by the In-quiry Officer were perverse and therefore, took the view that the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry were binding par-ticularly in the light of the fact that there is some evidence to support the case.
4. We have noticed that on the other hand the departmental inquiry was held to be vitiated and therefore independent evidence had to be led before the Labour Court. Such evidence was only in the shape of the examination of the Bank Manager and the documents regarding complaint given by Lakhan Singh and its subsequent withdrawal. In the light of the statement made by the Bank Manager in the course of his cross examination that Lakhan Singh deposited the said amount of Rs. 3500/- when he came to withdraw the complain belied the fact alleged in the charge. Lakhan Singh was not examined to support the case of Bank who alone could have thrown proper light on the ambiguity arising on account of contradiction between answers given by the Bank Manag-er in examination in chief and cross examination as to the depos-it of money. Therefore, we think the Labour Court was justified in the conclusion it reached and the High Court ought not to have independently appraised to the evidence on record. In the circum-stances we find the order made by the High Court needs to be set aside and that of the Labour Court award must be restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
1. A complaint was lodged on 21.4.1988 against the appellant by one Lakhan Singh who is a customer of the Bank that he went to the Bank at 4.00 p.m.
on 31.8.1987 to deposit a sum of Rs. 3500/- and gave the said amount to the appellant who also belongs to his village to deposit the said money. However, he had not deposited the said amount and when he got a notice from the Bank as to why he has not deposited the amount he made the complaint. Later on the said complaint was withdrawn. However, the Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and after holding inquiry came to the conclusion that he is guilty of the charges framed against him in not having deposited the amount given by Lakhan Singh in due time and therefore withheld four increments with cumulative effect. Against that action a dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The Labour Court on examination of the material before it, came to the conclusion that the inquiry held by the respondents is vitiated and called upon the Bank to adduce evidence in support of its case. The Bank examined its then manager who stated that he had received a complaint from Lakhan Singh and showed a receipt also in the handwriting of the appellant for having received a sum of Rs. 3500/- and that
the appellant deposited the sum of Rs. 3500/- on 23.4.1988. However, in the cross examination it is stated that on 23.4.1988 Lakhan Singh came to withdraw the complaint and deposited Rs. 3500/-.
2. The Labour Court felt that the complaint made by Lakhan Singh having been withdrawn, adequate proof was required as to what charge is levelled against the appellant as to misappropriation of the said amount of Rs. 3500/- and that charge was not estab-lished in the absence of evidence of Lakhan Singh and set aside the action taken by the Bank.
3. A writ petition was carried against the award and the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the Labour Court had held that the inquiry was fair but the findings recorded by the In-quiry Officer were perverse and therefore, took the view that the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry were binding par-ticularly in the light of the fact that there is some evidence to support the case.
4. We have noticed that on the other hand the departmental inquiry was held to be vitiated and therefore independent evidence had to be led before the Labour Court. Such evidence was only in the shape of the examination of the Bank Manager and the documents regarding complaint given by Lakhan Singh and its subsequent withdrawal. In the light of the statement made by the Bank Manager in the course of his cross examination that Lakhan Singh deposited the said amount of Rs. 3500/- when he came to withdraw the complain belied the fact alleged in the charge. Lakhan Singh was not examined to support the case of Bank who alone could have thrown proper light on the ambiguity arising on account of contradiction between answers given by the Bank Manag-er in examination in chief and cross examination as to the depos-it of money. Therefore, we think the Labour Court was justified in the conclusion it reached and the High Court ought not to have independently appraised to the evidence on record. In the circum-stances we find the order made by the High Court needs to be set aside and that of the Labour Court award must be restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
