A permanent employee’s dismissal without a charge-sheet and fair inquiry is unsustainable.

The workman, employed as a clerk from 1986 and confirmed in 1994, was suspended over an allegation that he had left his cash counter without permission in July 2007. Following an inquiry that found the charges proved, the Bank dismissed him on 1 January 2008.

The Labour Court found the inquiry unfair and contrary to natural justice, permitted the Bank to lead evidence, and concluded that the allegations were not established; it set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and wages for the intervening period.

The Industrial Court affirmed that decision, and the Single Judge dismissed the Bank’s writ petition.

In appeal, the Bank challenged the Single Judge’s reliance on Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and argued that dismissal was justified.

Whether Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applied to the proceedings under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, such that the Single Judge’s reliance on it required remand

Whether the dismissal could be sustained where no charge-sheet was issued, the workman was not afforded a proper opportunity to defend himself, and the evidence led before the Labour Court did not establish the allegations

Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, was the provision under which the workman first sought a change to the dismissal order.

The Court stated that a permanent employee could not be punished without an inquiry in which a charge-sheet was issued and the employee was given an opportunity to defend himself.

It also observed that, in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence would ordinarily not be disturbed.

Although the Bank disputed the applicability of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Court held that the Single Judge’s observations on that provision were immaterial to the result.

The Labour Court and Industrial Court had found that no charge-sheet was issued and that the disciplinary process was vitiated; the Labour Court also found the Bank’s evidence unreliable, including because the alleged apology was not produced and the witnesses’ accounts did not establish the charge.

Those concurrent factual findings were supported by the record and were not a basis for interference under Articles 226 or 227.

Accordingly, the dispute over Section 11-A did not affect the outcome: the dismissal could not stand because the workman had been dismissed without the required process and the allegations were not established.

It dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, discharged the Rule, and directed that pending applications be consigned to the records.