caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Standard Chartered Bank vs R.C. Srivastava on 29 September, 2021Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 6092 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 5931 of 2015)
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
R.C. SRIVASTAVA …RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 21st November, 2014 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad upholding the reinstatement with full
back wages awarded by the Tribunal dated 14 th September, 2006.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
3. The facts in brief which are relevant for the purpose are that
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2021.09.29
17:56:43 IST
Reason:
the respondentworkman was an employee of the appellantBank
1
and for the alleged delinquency which he had committed on 12 th
January, 1988 in discharge of his duties, a chargesheet dated
27th January, 1988 was served upon the respondentworkman
with the allegation of drunkenness within the premises of the
appellantBank and for manhandling and assaulting the senior
officers and also hurling abuses at the management. The relevant
portion of the chargesheet dated 27th January, 1988 reads as
under:
“You are aware that the hearing in the court case No.5887/83 was
fixed for 13.1.88 in which you are also a party. On 12.1.88 during
office hours Mr. Bachchoo Lal Mishra and Mr. P.K. Seth, officer of
the bank tomorrow there is a court case so do not mark me late as
I will go the court direct from my house. Mr. Seth told you and Mr.
Mishra that you should first come to the Bank, sign the attendance
register and only thereafter you should go to court. In the evening
again at about 5.30 PM you alongwith Mr. B.L. Mishra approached
Mr. Seth and told him not to mark Mr. B.L. Mishra late on 13.1.88
and that he would go to the court straight from his house without
first reporting to the bank. Mr. Seth asked you and Mr. Mishra to
first come to the bank, sign the attendance register and then go to
the court. You and Mr. Mishra then asked Mr. Seth to talk to Mr.
Sikka, Assistant Manager (Operation) who in turn advised Mr. Seth
to write court case in the attendance register which fact was
advised to you as also to Mr. Mishra.
On the same day i.e. 12.1.88, Mr. Seth alongwith Mr. Arun Sharma
were in the office at about 9.00 PM and were going to close the
branch when you alongwith Mr. B.L. Mishra, Mr. Than Singh and
an outsider entered the bank hall in a drunken state and started
discussing the issue regarding marking late in the attendance
register. Mr. A. Sharma tried to pacify you and the others by
pointing out that such requirements are normal norms of the office
and that the officers were carrying out the instructions on the
senior officers and that such requirements are only as per office
rules. It is reported that both Mr. Mishra and Mr. Than Singh
abused the Management/Officers as you were looking on Mr. Than
Singh said: “Ek Ek ko dekh lenge, Maa chod dunga, Ek ek ki tang
tod denge.”
2
Mr. Misra abused thus: ‘Maa chod dunga. Ek Ek ki maa chod
dunga.’ With persuasion of Mr. Arun Sharma and Mr. Seth, officers
of the bank, you alongwith the others went out of the bank hall
and stood in the bank’s compound as Mr. Sharma, locked up the
premises. Again both Mr. Misra and Mr. Than Singh started
abusing Mr. Seth and the Management in logon ke maa chod
denge. Salon ke tange tod denge. In the meantime Mr. Sharma
went to the residence of Mr. Sikka in the bank compound to
deposit the bank’s keys. The moment Mr. Sharma went out you
alongwith the outsider pulled Mr. Seth’s tie from his neck and
manhandled and slapped him resulting in his spectacles being
broken and he also got a bruise on his left eye.
The above said acts on your part if proved will constitute the
following gross misconduct under paragraph 19.5 of the Bipartite
Settlement dated 19.10.66, which reads as under:
19.5 (c): Drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent
behaviour on the premises of the bank and
(d) Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank, and you
are hereby charged with the above gross acts of misconduct.”
4. For the alleged gross misconduct which he had committed
in discharge of his duties, a departmental enquiry was held and
in the course of enquiry, the evidence of three witnesses namely,
Mr. P.K. Seth (MW1), Mr. B.M. Sikka (MW2) and Mr. Arun
Sharma (MW3), who are the officers and with whom the alleged
incident had occurred were produced by the management and in
defence, the respondentworkman had not appeared in the
witness box but two employees namely, Mr. Shyam Bahadur
(DW1)Watchman and Mr. Panna Lal (DW2) an exemployee of
the Bank, were produced.
3
5. The enquiry officer after holding enquiry in terms of the
Bipartite Settlement and after due compliance of the principles of
natural justice held the charges proved against the delinquent
respondent and the disciplinary authority after due compliance,
confirmed the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and
punished him with the penalty of dismissal from service by an
order dated 22nd August, 1991.
6. The reference made by the appropriate Government by its
notification dated 30th June, 1992 for adjudication to the
Tribunal reads as under:
“Whether the action of the management of ANZ Grindlays Bank Plc,
Kanpur in dismissing Sri R.C. Srivastava from service with effect
from 22 August 1991 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
7. The Tribunal in the first instance after examining the record
of enquiry held the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper and
thereafter, revisited the record of enquiry and apprised the
statement of the management witnesses namely, Mr. P.K. Seth
(MW1), Mr. B.M. Sikka (MW2) and Mr. Arun Sharma (MW3)
and defence witnesses namely, the Watchman (DW1) and the ex
employee of the Bank (DW2) and recorded a finding that the
management of the appellantBank has miserably failed to
4
establish the charges levelled against the respondentworkman
and held the charges not being proved and in consequence, set
aside the order of dismissal from service and directed the
appellant to reinstate the respondentworkman in service with
full back wages, seniority and all the consequential benefits
attached to the post by its Award dated 14th September, 2006.
8. The award dated 14th September, 2006 came to be
challenged by the appellant in a writ petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution and the High Court by its impugned
judgment and order dated 21st November, 2014 dismissed the
writ petition.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the
domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper, the Tribunal has
a limited scope to interfere with the findings recorded in the
domestic enquiry and unless the finding is perverse and not
supported by a piece of evidence, it was not open for the tribunal
to interfere within the scope of Section 11A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act
1947”).
5
10. However, in the instant case, the Tribunal converted itself
into a Court of Appeal and has not only revisited the evidence in
toto but has proceeded on the assumption that the management
has to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and despite
the material evidence of three officers, who were abused by
respondentworkman in drunkenness condition, have been
completely disowned on the premise that one Watchman (DW1)
and an exemployee of the Bank(DW2) have stated in their
deposition that such incident has not occurred and to justify it, a
document was placed on record i.e. the attendance register of the
time in question and to confront it further with the fact that the
delinquent had not appeared in the domestic enquiry and still a
finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that such incidence
has not occurred is something which has appeared from blue and
without there being any iota of the factual foundation, the
interference made by the tribunal in the finding of guilt recorded
in the course of enquiry is not only perverse but is unsustainable
in law.
11. The scope of judicial review in the matter of domestic
enquiry is to examine whether the procedure in holding domestic
enquiry has been violated or the principles of natural justice has
6
been complied with, or any perversity in the finding of guilt
recorded during the course of domestic enquiry has been
committed. The basic error which was committed by the Tribunal
in its impugned Award has not been appreciated even by the
High Court and dismissed the writ petition without appreciating
the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry keeping into
consideration the principles laid down by this Court of
preponderance of probabilities while holding guilt in the domestic
enquiry and exceeded in its jurisdiction defined under Section
11A of the Act 1947. To the contrary, the officers with whom the
alleged occurrence of gross misconduct has been committed have
been put to notice that their allegation on the face of it is
unfounded, baseless and has not at all occurred which is
something beyond imagination. More so, when it was established
during the course of enquiry after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the delinquent respondent, enquiry officer held the
charges proved and confirmed by the disciplinary authority
followed with the penalty of dismissal upon the respondent.
12. It is informed to this Court that the respondentworkman
had attained the age of superannuation on 31 st January, 2012
7
and during the period of litigation, he has throughout been paid
his last wages drawn in terms of Section 17B of the Act 1947.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent while
supporting the findings recorded by the Tribunal and confirmed
by the High Court in the impugned judgment submits that there
was no evidence on record as appreciated by the Tribunal in the
first place, in arriving to the conclusion that such alleged
incident in reference to which domestic enquiry was held had
never occurred and the action was taken against him because he
was an active member of a union and this was the circuitous
route adopted by the appellant to eliminate the respondent to
curb his trade union activities in the bank and the only recourse
available was to make such uncalled for baseless allegations
which certainly on being tested on the floor of judicial review by
the Tribunal do not hold good and rightly interfered by the
Tribunal and has been confirmed by the High Court.
14. We have considered the submissions of the parties and with
their assistance examined the material available on record.
15. This Court while issuing notice on 27th February, 2015
stayed the payment of back wages obviously for the reason by
8
that time the respondentworkman had attained the age of
superannuation on 31st January, 2012.
16. It is not the case of the respondent that the domestic
enquiry has not been conducted as per the Bipartite Settlement
dated 19th October, 1966, which was applicable for holding
domestic enquiry in reference to misconduct committed by a
workman and the alleged misconduct for which the respondent
workman was chargesheeted has been defined as one of the
misconduct under Clause 19.5 (c) and (d) of the Bipartite
Settlement. The acts which constitute the gross misconduct
under paragraph 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19 th
October, 1966 reads as under:
“19.5 (c): Drunkeness or riotous or disorderly or indecent
behaviour on the premises of the bank and
(d) Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank, and you
are hereby charged with the above gross acts of misconduct.”
17. After the charge sheet dated 27th January, 1988 was served,
of which a detail reference has been made in the course of
enquiry, the officers of the Bank namely, Mr. P.K. Seth (MW1),
Mr. B.M. Sikka (MW2) and Mr. Arun Sharma (MW3) with whom
the alleged misconduct was committed by the respondent
workman had appeared as a witness on behalf of the
9
management in support of allegation levelled against the
respondentworkman in the charge sheet and for the reason best
known, the respondent had not recorded his own statement in
defence in the course of enquiry but produced (DW1)Watchman
and (DW2) – an exemployee of the Bank who confronted the
statement of the witnesses of the management with whom the
alleged incident occurred, based on the ocular evidence and
obviously, there cannot be any documentary evidence to support
with the kind of allegation of misconduct levelled against the
respondentworkman, the enquiry officer after affording
opportunity of hearing and due compliance of principles of
natural justice recorded the finding of charge being proved and
confirmed by the disciplinary authority and in consequence
thereof, he was punished with the penalty of dismissal from
service with effect from 22 nd August, 1991. The Tribunal after re
appraisal of the record of domestic enquiry held it to be fair and
proper, has a very limited scope to interfere in the domestic
enquiry to the extent as to whether there is any apparent
perversity in the finding of fact which has been recorded by the
enquiry officer in his report of enquiry obviously, based on the
evidence recorded during the course of enquiry and as to whether
10
the compliance of the Bipartite Settlement which provides the
procedure of holding enquiry is violated or the punishment
levelled against the workman commensurate with the nature of
allegation proved against him and if it is grossly disproportionate,
the tribunal will always be justified to interfere by invoking its
statutory power under Section 11A of the Act 1947.
18. In the instant case, after we have gone through the record,
we find that the Tribunal has converted itself into a Court of
Appeal as an appellate authority and has exceeded its
jurisdiction while appreciating the finding recorded in the course
of domestic enquiry and tested on the broad principles of charge
to be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is a test in the
criminal justice system and has completely forgotten the fact that
the domestic enquiry is to be tested on the principles of
preponderance of probabilities and if a piece of evidence is on
record which could support the charge which has been levelled
against the delinquent unless it is per se unsustainable or
perverse, ordinarily is not to be interfered by the Tribunal, more
so when the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and proper
and, in our view, the Tribunal has completely overlooked and
exceeded its jurisdiction while interfering with the finding
11
recorded during the course of enquiry in furtherance of which,
the respondent was dismissed from service and the High Court
has also committed a manifest error while passing the judgment
impugned.
19. The decision of the Labour Court should not be based on
mere hypothesis. It cannot overturn the decision of the
management on ipse dixit. Its jurisdiction under Section 11A of
the Act 1947 although is a wide one but it must be judiciously
exercised. Judicial discretion, it is trite, cannot be exercised
either whimsically or capriciously. It may scrutinize or analyse
the evidence but what is important is how it does so.
20. We are of the considered view that the Award passed by the
Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court under impugned
judgment is not sustainable in law.
21. On the last date of hearing before this Court, we have called
upon the appellant to place for our perusal the payment which
has been made to the respondentworkman.
22. In compliance thereof, the statement has been placed before
us for perusal, indicates that a sum of Rs.46,89,421.16 plus
amount towards Section 17B of the Act 1947, i.e.
12
Rs.10,27,096.56, in total Rs.57,16,517.72 has been paid to the
respondentworkman in the interregnum period.
23. Learned counsel for the respondent in his submission has
tried to persuade this Court that a poor workman has been
targeted by the appellant and throughout his life, he had been in
the litigation and what has been paid to him is his legitimate
dues and interference, if made, may cause prejudice to him.
24. In the given facts and circumstances, looking to the peculiar
facts of this case where the respondentworkman had been paid
Rs.57,16,517.72 and had attained the age of superannuation on
31st January, 2012, stay was granted by this Court in reference
to back wages by order 27th February, 2015, while upholding the
order of penalty of dismissal from service dated 22 nd August,
1991 passed by the authority in the domestic enquiry, we
consider it appropriate to observe that no recovery shall be made
in reference to the payment which has been made over to the
workman in the interregnum period, of which a reference has
been made by us aforestated.
25. The appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed and the
judgment of the High Court dated 21 st November, 2014 affirming
13
the Award dated 14th September, 2006 passed by the Tribunal is
set aside with the clarification that there shall be no recovery in
reference to the payment which has been made over to the
respondentworkman in the interregnum period.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
…………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………………..J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
14
Comments