Anandan was a Sub-Staff in Indian Bank, Villupuram Branch and he was issued with a show cause notice dated 26.7.1976, in which it is alleged that on 1.7.1976, he had drawn a pay order for Rs.5,000/- from the Savings Bank account of one R.Subramanian favouring one V.Arumugam by forging the signature of the account holder R.Subramanian. Thereafter, it is further alleged that he handed over the pay order to his brother B.Sanjeevi, who after endorsing on the reverse of the pay order as V.Arumugam, received cash payment. In response to the show cause notice, he sent reply dated 9.10.1976, denying the allegations made in the show cause notice.
2. It appears that simultaneously, on the complaint given by the Indian Bank, the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Police Station registered a case in Crime No.1459 of 1976 for the offences under
sections 468 and
420 IPC against Anandan. After completing the investigation in Crime No.1459 of 1976, the Police filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.349 of 1976 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Villupuram against Anandan for the aforesaid offences.
3. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings, the Management issued a charge memo dated 18.12.1978, reappraising the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice dated 26.7.1976. Though an enquiry officer was appointed as early as on 18.12.1978, for nearly two years, the Indian Bank did not conduct any enquiry.
4. In the mean time, the criminal prosecution in C.C.No.349 of 1979 proceeded before the trial court and Anandan was convicted and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- by judgment dated 8.2.1980. Consequent to his conviction and sentence, the Indian Bank dismissed him from service on 12.4.1980. Anandan filed an appeal in C.A.No.84 of 1980 before the Sessions Court, Cuddalore and the appeal was allowed and he was acquitted on 20.4.1982.
5. Armed with judgment of acquittal, Anandan gave a representation dated 14.6.1982 for reinstatement in service. The Bank reinstated him in service on 21.10.1982 and paid him all arrears of pay and allowances, but, once again placed him under suspension on the same day, i.e, on 21.10.1982 on the ground that they are going to initiate departmental action against him.
6. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer, by his report dated 30.6.1987, held that the charges were proved and he gave his reply dated 15.4.1996. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Bank dismissed him from service on 22.5.1996, aggrieved by which, Anandan preferred an internal appeal to the General Manager, which also came to be rejected on 11.1.1997. Thereafter, Anandan raised an industrial dispute under
Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and on the failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the Principal Labour Court, Chennai and the same was taken on file as CGID No.252/1999 and on the constitution of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter would be referred to as "Labour Court"), Chennai, the matter was transferred to the said Court and was taken on file as I.D.No.668 of 2001.
7. Anandan had filed his Claim Statement, wherein he challenged the domestic enquiry proceedings as follows:
"The petitioner came to know that the enquiry officer has found the charges alleged him were proved in the domestic enquiry said to have been conducted by the respondent-management. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the second show cause notice by his letter dated 15.4.1996, wherein he submitted that the enquiry itself was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer was biased and prejudiced against him right from the beginning and that there was no legal evidence available against him to hold that the charges have been proved; the findings of the Enquiry Officer was perverse, one sided; and bad in law as no reasonable person would come to such a conclusion on the basis of the evidence available on record; the Sessions Court judgment had not at all been considered in a manner known to law by the Enquiry Officer."
8. The Bank entered appearance and refuted the allegations of Anandan, by contending that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner.
9. The Labour Court framed the following issue:
"Whether the management of Indian Bank is justified in terminating the services of Sri B.Anandan w.e.f.22.5.1996 and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
9. No witnesses were examined on either side, but on behalf of Anandan, 8 documents were marked and on behalf of the Bank, 9 documents were marked.
10. The Labour Court by award dated 5.2.2003 held that dismissal of Anandan was justified, challenging which Anandan is before this Court.
11. Heard Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for Anandan and Mrs.Rita Srinivasan, learned counsel for the Management.
12. The short facts that fall for consideration is whether the Labour Court had framed proper issues?
13. When Anandan had taken the specific plea in the Claim Statement, assailing the domestic enquiry proceedings, it is incumbent on the Labour Court to have framed a preliminary issue as to the validity of the domestic enquiry proceedings. Mrs.Rita Srinivasan contended that such a course is not necessary in every case and that just because the same has not been done, the award cannot be set aside.
14. Refuting the above submission, Mr.K.M.Ramesh placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering Limited vs. P.P.Mundhe, (1975) 2 SCC 661.
15. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
16. The issue raised in this writ petition is no more res integra, in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i) Workmen of M/s.Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co.of India (P) Ltd. v. Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227 and (ii) Cooper Engineering Ltd., vs. P.P.Mundhe, (1975) 2 SCC 661.
17. It may be profitable to record the following paragraph from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd. case (supra):
"22. We are therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication, the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated, the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties, that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced, it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise line issue. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication."
18. It is essential that a preliminary issue as to the validity of the enquiry proceedings should be framed because in the event of the Labour Court holding from the domestic enquiry records that the same has not been properly conducted, then the employer will have an opportunity to adduce evidence. In this case, on a reading of the Award, the Labour Court has not given any finding about the validity of the domestic enquiry proceedings. Therefore, this Court has no other option to set aside the award and remand the matter to the Labour Court for framing the preliminary issue as indicated above and proceed de nova.
19. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai-6 in I.D.No.668 of 2001, dated 5.2.2003 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after framing the preliminary issue and other issues as the Labour Court may deem it fit and proper, with a further direction to the Labour Court to complete the same, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the records from this Court. No costs.