Employee Bringing Police to Interrogate Superiors Over Routine Transfer and Misleading External Authorities Constitutes Misconduct

The Respondent, a clerk absorbed into the Petitioner-Bank following an amalgamation, was transferred to the Vashi Branch on May 16, 2012.

It was alleged that on May 17, 2012, she brought two policemen to the Bank to confront and interrogate the Manager, Mr. H.D. Bhat, regarding her transfer.

Further, she allegedly filed various "frivolous" complaints against the Bank with authorities like the RBI, Banking Ombudsman, and the Chief Minister to tarnish the Bank's reputation.

Following a domestic enquiry, she was dismissed on January 28, 2015.

The Respondent challenged her dismissal under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The Labour Court held the enquiry was fair but found the Enquiry Officer’s findings "perverse".

This was upheld by the Industrial Court in revision. The Bank filed this Petition challenging the finding of perversity.

1. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding the act of bringing policemen to the Bank and filing external complaints were perverse or based on "no evidence"

2. Whether the Labour and Industrial Courts exceeded their jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence rather than applying the "some evidence" test

the principles of administrative law governing domestic enquiries, specifically the "preponderance of probability" test rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt

Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police, which established that a finding is not perverse if there is "some evidence" on record, however compendious

State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, holding that strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to domestic enquiries and sufficiency of evidence is beyond judicial scrutiny unless there is a total absence of evidence

M.H. Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corpn., stating that actions detrimental to the prestige of the employer undermine discipline

The Court found that the Labour Court misdirected itself by redefining the charge as "disobedience of transfer orders" rather than the actual charge of "bringing policemen to interrogate a manager"

The High Court noted that the Respondent admitted to bringing the police in cross-examination, and the Manager testified to being interrogated; thus, there was "some evidence" to support the charge.

The Court reasoned that bringing police to settle a service grievance is inherently intimidating to staff, regardless of the absence of "violence"

Regarding the second charge, the Court held that while an employee can air grievances internally, addressing complaints to external/unrelated authorities (like the Chief Minister) which require the Bank to expend resources to defend itself constitutes a valid basis for a misconduct charge.

The Court concluded the lower courts erroneously performed a de novo appreciation of evidence instead of checking if any probative material existed to support the Enquiry Officer's report.

It held that the Enquiry Officer’s findings were not perverse, as they were supported by evidence on record, except for the specific sub-charge of "misbehaviour" with Mr. Bhat. However, the Court directed the Labour Court to now adjudicate the remaining issues, specifically whether the punishment of dismissal is proportionate to the proved misconduct, to be decided within six months.