1968 (8) TMI 193 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms Tribunal's decision on Central Bank employee dismissal under Industrial Disputes Act

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI Versus SHRI PRAKASH CHAND JAIN

The Supreme Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's decision to refuse approval for the dismissal of the respondent by Central Bank of India Ltd. under ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.2. Validity of the findings of the Enquiry Officer.3. Application of principles of natural justice.4. Adequacy of evidence supporting the charges.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act:The appellant, Central Bank of India Ltd., challenged the Industrial Tribunal's refusal to approve the dismissal of the respondent under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal found the enquiry fair but held the findings perverse and unsupported by evidence. The Supreme Court reiterated that the Tribunal's role under Section 33(2)(b) is limited to ensuring that the enquiry was fair and the findings were not perverse. The Tribunal should not reassess the evidence as an appellate court.2. Validity of the findings of the Enquiry Officer:The Enquiry Officer found both charges against the respondent proved, leading to his dismissal. The Tribunal, however, deemed these findings as based on conjecture and hearsay rather than solid evidence. The Supreme Court examined whether the Tribunal was correct in its assessment. It was found that the Tribunal rightly identified several findings as unsupported by legal evidence, thus perverse. However, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the finding that the respondent left for Muzaffarnagar on 14-1-1960, which was supported by adequate evidence.3. Application of principles of natural justice:The Supreme Court emphasized that domestic tribunals must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring evidence is presented in the presence of the accused. The Enquiry Officer's reliance on hearsay evidence, such as statements made by Nand Kishore to Vazifdar, which were not affirmed in the respondent's presence, violated these principles. The Tribunal correctly identified these procedural lapses, rendering the findings perverse.4. Adequacy of evidence supporting the charges:The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence supporting each element of the charges:- First Charge: The Tribunal correctly found no legal evidence for the payment of Rs. 30,400 to the respondent and his departure to Muzaffarnagar with others to retire bills. The evidence was based on hearsay and conjecture.- Second Charge: The Enquiry Officer's findings on the timing of cash presentation and clearing were unsupported by legal evidence. The only evidence, the endorsement on the cheque, was misinterpreted without corroborative testimony from the United Bank of India.The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the limited proof of the respondent's presence in Muzaffarnagar on 14-1-1960 was insufficient to justify the dismissal. The Tribunal's refusal to approve the dismissal was thus justified.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and correctly identified the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer, which were unsupported by legal evidence. The principles of natural justice were not adhered to, and the evidence presented was inadequate to substantiate the charges against the respondent. The Tribunal's refusal to grant approval for the dismissal was upheld.