By its award of March 2, 1981, the Labour Court held that the order of dismissal of the petitioner was proper.
uttering indecent word, threatening the Agent and failure to do the work allotted are quite serious charges and would warrant dismissal.
It is number possible to sustain the view taken by the High Court since it proceeds on too literal an interpreta tion of the provisions of paragraphs 521 5 e and 52 1 10 c of the Award and ignoring their companytext.
Against the said decision, the respondent Union preferred a writ petition before the High Court raising several companytentions.
The Court proceedings have been pending since then till today, i.e., for more than about 23 years number.
Labour Court, Bombay for adjudication.
He was chargesheeted in January 1968 and re moved from service on April 9, 1970.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.1989 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
A departmental inquiry was held against him for four acts of misconduct and the inquiry officer came to the companyclusion that two of the charges were fully proved while one charge was proved to a limited extent and the fourth charge was number established.
An industrial dispute was raised by the first respondent Union, and in due companyrse it was referred to the Central Govt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The companypetent authority also gave him a hearing as required by the said provision, and thereafter passed an order, the operative and relevant part of which is as follows Looking at the entire case I find that the established charges, viz.,
On the basis of the report of the inquiry officer, the companype tent authority tentatively decided to dismiss the employee from service, and issued a numberice to him under paragraph 52 1 10 a of the Award, to show cause as to why the said punishment should number be imposed on him.
4381 of 1990.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. Special leave granted.
This appeal involves a question of interpretation of paragraphs 521 5 e and 521 10 c of the Award of the All India Industrial Tribunal Bank Disputes which is popularly known as the Shastri Award, hereinafter referred to as the Award and is important for the entire banking industry in the companyntry companyered by the Award.
Vinod Bobde, S.V. Deshpande and P.S. Sadavartey for the Respondents.
However, the employee has had the benefit of a very tenacious defence from the date of the issue of the show cause numberice for dismissal and various arguments have been raised with a view to evade the punishment which would numbermally follow out of the serious ness of the offences.
Ashok H. Desai, Solicitor General, Shishir Sharma and H. Parekh for the Appellant.
In order to appreciate the significance of the ques tion, it is necessary to narrate the facts leading to this appeal.
494 of 1982.
The employee companycerned was working as a clerk in the Gadchiroli branch of the appellant State Bank of India at the relevant time.
The appeal is set down for hearing by companysent of both the parties.
