STANDARD CHARTERED BANK vs. R.C. SRIVASTAVA

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) J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and st order dated 21   November, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad upholding the reinstatement with full th back wages awarded by the Tribunal dated 14  September, 2006. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2021.09.29 17:56:43 IST Reason: 3. The facts in brief which are relevant for the purpose are that the respondent­workman was an employee of the appellant­Bank 1 th and for the alleged delinquency which he had committed on 12 January, 1988 in discharge of his duties, a charge­sheet dated th 27   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 th portion of the charge­sheet dated 27   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 nd order dated 22  August, 1991.  6. The reference made by the appropriate Government by its th notification   dated   30   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 th attached to the post by its Award dated 14  September, 2006. th 8. The   award   dated   14   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 st judgment and order dated 21   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 st had attained the age of superannuation on 31   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.  th 15. This   Court   while   issuing   notice   on   27   February,   2015 stayed the payment of back wages obviously for the reason by 8 that   time   the   respondent­workman   had   attained   the   age   of st superannuation on 31  January, 2012.  16. It   is   not   the   case   of   the   respondent   that   the   domestic enquiry has not been conducted as per the Bipartite Settlement th dated   19   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 th under   paragraph   19.5   of   the   Bipartite   Settlement   dated   19 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.” th 17. After the charge sheet dated 27  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 nd service with effect from 22  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 st 31  January, 2012, stay was granted by this Court in reference th to back wages by order 27  February, 2015, while upholding the nd order  of  penalty   of  dismissal  from   service   dated   22   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 st judgment of the High Court dated 21  November, 2014 affirming 13 th the Award dated 14  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