Standard Chartered Bank vs R.C. Srivastava on 29 September, 2021

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