Omitting a written-statement request does not entitle an employer to belatedly prove misconduct.

The Respondent, a bank clerk, was dismissed after a domestic enquiry into allegations that he credited a pay order of ₹4,139 to his own overdraft account and used another official’s code and password to authorise the transaction.

He challenged the dismissal before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held the enquiry vitiated for withholding documents relevant to his defence and denying cross-examination after re-examination; it rejected the Bank’s subsequent request to lead evidence on the charges because no such request had been made in its written statement, and ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits.

The Single Judge dismissed the Bank’s writ petition, and the Bank appealed.

The Respondent’s sworn statement that he had been unable to obtain alternative employment was made in his Section 17B application.

1. Whether the domestic enquiry was rightly held to be vitiated for breach of natural justice.

2. Whether the Bank, having neither sought nor reserved leave in its written statement to lead evidence on the charges, was entitled to do so after the preliminary ruling or to obtain a remand.

3. Whether the Respondent was entitled to consequential benefits, including arrears of wages and retiral benefits.

The principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to defend; withholding material relevant to the defence and denying cross-examination on matters raised in re-examination may vitiate a domestic enquiry where prejudice is established.

Under Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Lakshmidevamma, an employer should specifically seek leave to lead additional evidence in its written statement; a Labour Court or Tribunal is not obliged to invite such evidence if no request is made, although it retains discretion to permit evidence in an appropriate case.

On back wages, National Gandhi Museum v. Sudhir Sharma and Ramesh Chand v. Management of Delhi Transport Corporation establish that an employee may discharge the initial burden of showing non-employment through a statement on oath, after which the employer may rebut it with evidence.

Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was relevant to the Respondent’s interim-benefit application.

The withheld attendance sheet and documents concerning the co-delinquent who was the Bank’s sole witness bore directly on the allegation that the Respondent used another official’s credentials and on the witness’s credibility; the Respondent was then faulted for lacking supporting evidence. The denial of further cross-examination was also material because re-examination raised matters beyond clarification and the Appellate Authority relied on those answers. The enquiry was therefore vitiated on independently sufficient grounds.

The Bank had not sought leave in its written statement despite the Respondent’s express challenge to the enquiry, and waited until the preliminary ruling to apply, without explaining the delay. The Tribunal’s refusal and the Single Judge’s decision were consistent with the governing principles; a remand was unwarranted given the delay and the Respondent’s superannuation.

As to benefits, the Respondent’s sworn statement of non-employment was unrebutted by evidence from the Bank, and the earlier period spent pursuing a writ petition could not be held against him in light of the liberty granted to approach the Tribunal.

Because the Respondent had superannuated, reinstatement was replaced by deemed continuity in service until superannuation.

The Registry was directed to release the deposited ₹32,83,591, with accrued interest, to the Respondent within four weeks; the Bank was directed to compute and pay consequential benefits, including arrears of wages and retiral benefits, within eight weeks, after adjustment of that deposit. No interest was awarded on the arrears.