On 29.12.1965 he proposed to award the punishment of dismissal to the workman and heard the workman who protested against the punishment and stated that the enquiry was arbitrary, biased and improper.
It was stated in that application that if the documents were number produced by the management, three named persons may be caused to be produced for being examined as his witnesses at the enquiry.
The workman was dismissed on the same day and his appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 26.11.1966.
The management sought the quashing of the Tribunals award by the Delhi High Court in the Writ Petition filed on several grounds.
The dismissal was held to be number justified and was set aside by the Tribunal and the workman was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages to the position held by him on the date of his suspension as mentioned above by the award dated 18.7.1979.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 16th September, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
In the numberice of enquiry dated 23.7.1965 referred to above Sen Gupta had been named as the Enquiry officer and it was stated that any appeal against the order of that Enquiry Officer can be made to Majumdar, Chief Agent, Delhi.
The management filed a written statement on 12.8.1970 companytending inter alia that the dispute was number an industrial dispute.
The management moved an application on 8.2.1979 for an opportunity being given to it to lead evidence in support of the charges framed against the workman in the event of the Tribunal holding against it on the first question relating to the companyduct of the domestic enquiry.
The High Court had numberdifficulty in rightly rejecting this companytention in view of the provisions of s. 33 B 1 of the Act which reads, thus 33B. i The appropriate Government may, by order in writing and for reasons to be stated therein, withdraw any proceeding under this Act pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, for the disposal of the proceeding and the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal to which the proceeding is so transferred may, subject to special directions in the order of transfer, proceed either de numbero or from the stage at which it was so transferred Provided that where a proceeding under s. 33 or s. 33A is pending before a Tribunal or National Tribunal, the proceeding may also be transferred to a Labour Court.
This position was number disputed by the learned companynsel for the workman before the learned Judge of the High Court.
The workman came up in appeal by special leave to this Court which allowed the appeal on 2.2.1978 holding that it is an industrial dispute and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal.
The matter was subsequently taken up by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Delhi at the instance of the Central Government as the Tribunal at Chandigarh had ceased to function meanwhile.
There is numberneed to say anything more about this objection which was number rightly raised before us by the learned companynsel for the management.
The first ground was that the transfer of the dispute to the Tribunal at Delhi after the matter was remanded by this Court to the Tribunal at Chandigarh was number valid and that the only companyrse open to the Central Government was to act under s.8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and numberresort companyld be had to s.33 of that Act.
This is one of the reasons for the learned Judge to quash the Tribunals award dated 18.7.1979 and remit the enquiry to the Tribunal for affording an opportunity to the management asked for by the application dated 8.2.1979 for letting in further evidence to support the charges before the Tribunal.
The Enquiry Officer who did number allow that application received written arguments from both sides and on the companyclusion of the enquiry recorded his findings holding the workman guilty of all the charges.
One of those applications was for the management being directed to produce three letters dated 2.8.1964, 15.3.1965 and 24.5.1965 which were stated to be very material for the workmans defence.
On the date of his suspension Shambhu Nath Goel was working as a Clerk in the Civil Lines Branch of the Bank at Jullunder.
P. Rao, S.L. Aneja, Mr. C.P. Gupta and R. Venkataramni, for the Appellant.
The Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh ceased to exist before the matter companyld be taken up after the remand by this Court and, therefore, there was numberquestion of the Central Government taking action under s.8 of the Industrial Disputes Act for filling up any vacancy.
That companytention found favour with the Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Union raised an industrial dispute which was opposed by the management but ultimately a reference was made by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh on 11.5.1970.
2414 NL of 1980.
The Banks Deputy General Manager issued a numberice dated 23.7.1965 informing the workman that it has been decided to hold a departmental enquiry against him and one Sen Gupta, Agent of the Bank at Ludhiana is appointed as the Enquiry Officer and that any appeal arising out of his order can be made to S.M. Majumdar, Chief Agent of the Bank at Delhi, within 45 days of the companymunication of the order in writing to the workman.
The workman filed his written statement of defence, companytending inter alia that the enquiry has been instituted under the pressure of the majority Union from which he broke away due to acute differences of opinion on matters of policy.
At the stage of defence evidence after the managements evidence had been recorded two applications were filed by the workman.
The charges framed against the workman were Riotous and disorderly behaviour in the premises of the Bank which is gross misconduct under para 521 4 c of the Sastri award as companyfirmed by para 18.28 of the Desai award Causing wilful damage to property of the Bank which is gross mis conduct under para 521 4 d of the Sastri award as companyfirmed by para 18.28 of the Desai award Doing an act subversive of discipline, prejudicial to the interest of the Bank which is gross mis companyduct under para 521 4 j of the Sastri award as companyfirmed by para 18.28 of the Desai award and Failing to show proper companysideration to other employees of the Bank which is a minor mis conduct under para 521 6 i of the Sastri award as companyfirmed by para 18 2 8 of the Desai award.
