Heard Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court for seeking the following relief, “To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the award passed by the second respondent in I.D.No.2 of 2007, dated 20.04.2009, quash the same by allowing the I.D. and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances flowing therefrom, seniority and continuity of service.”
3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
The writ petitioner is the employee union representing the employee of the first respondent Bank viz., M.Natarajan. The said Natarajan was charge sheeted by the first respondent Bank for certain acts of misconduct on 09.05.2003. The employee in response to the charge memo, submitted an explanation denying the allegations. However, not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted into the charges.
4. The Enquiry Officer after concluded the enquiry, held that the charges framed against the employee herein have been proved by report dated 13.04.2005. The employee submitted his explanation to the enquiry report on 10.05.2005. In the explanation, the employee had pointed out various infirmities in the conduct of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings as it is and imposed a penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 30.08.2005, against which an appeal was preferred on 30.09.2005, before the appellate authority viz., the Deputy General Manager (P&HRD). However, the appellate authority vide order dated 24.01.2006, rejected the appeal without proper examination and appreciation of various infirmities and lacunae pointed out by the employee, against which the Industrial Dispute was raised on behalf of the employee. The petitioner union has raised a dispute which was referred for adjudication before the second respondent – Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The second respondent passed an award on 20.04.2009, dismissing the Industrial Dispute filed by the union on behalf of the employee.
5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner union would submit that there was no evidence whatsoever to hold the employee concerned as guilty of the charges framed against him. According to him, the enquiry finding was perverse and no proper opportunity was given to the employee for defending his side. Both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have not addressed the various infirmities and defects in the conduct of the enquiry in proper perspective and mechanically imposed the impugned order of penalty of dismissal from service which was also affirmed in the appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner union would draw this Court's attention to the findings of the Labour Court, particularly to the paragraph 10 and 11 of the award. This Court has gone through the relevant portion of the award but find that the award is clearly a non-speaking and did not consider the nature of evidence available in respect of the charges framed against the employee concerned. There was no proper finding rendered by the second respondent as to the materials made available either before the departmental enquiry or before it.
7. The findings of the Labour Court is bereft of any proper reasons and the Labour Court seem to have over looked several aspects of the case and did not in the first place under a finding as to whether the enquiry conducted was fair and proper at all. Such findings has not been rendered by the second respondent though on behalf of the employee such grounds were raised questioning the validity of the departmental enquiry. Moreover, it has to be seen that the Labour Court has not over looked several issues and not dealt with the evidence which was let in before it both oral and documentary and no reference was drawn to the evidence which was placed before it. In effect, the award of the Labour Court is completely bereft of any findings on any aspect of both factual and legal. Therefore, such award cannot be countenanced in law.
8. The Labour Court has also not embarked upon the exercise of proper scrutiny of evidence in both oral and documentary in order to come to a right conclusion as to the guilt of the employee concerned. While rendering the award, the second respondent has merely referred to one or two statements of the parties and concluded against the employee. It is needless to mention that it is incumbent upon the second respondent to give specific and clear findings in respect of each of the grounds raised before it. In the absence of such findings, the award becomes invalid and unsustainable.
9. Upon notice, the learned counsel for the respondents entered appearance and filed a detailed counter affidavit. The learned counsel would submit that the second respondent has given some reasons in support of this award and therefore, the same does not call for interference of this Court.
10. This Court have gone through the award and is of the considered view that such non-speaking award cannot be countenanced both on facts and on law and in the absence of complete findings in respect of the issues raised on behalf of the workman and the management, the award cannot be allowed to stand. In the said circumstances, this Court is constrained to set aside the award dated 20.04.2009, passed in I.D.No.2 of 2007. while setting aside the award, this Court remits the Industrial Dispute to the second respondent – Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, for fresh consideration of the claim of the both labour and the management.
11. The second respondent is directed to afford all opportunities to the workman represented by the union and also the management and permit them to lead any additional evidence if it is requested for by the parties and upon considering all the relevant evidence both oral and documentary, pass an award within a period of six months from the date, the matter is remanded to the file of the second respondent-Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.
12. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
14.09.2017 Note: Registry is directed to transmit all the papers to the second respondent – Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, within a period of one week from today. Issue order copy today.
Index : yes/No Internet : Yes gsk To
1. The Federal Bank Limited, Rep.by its Chief Manager, Personnel and Industrial Relation Department, Federal Towers, Post Bag No.103, Aluva-683 101, Kerala.
2. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, I Floor, 'B' Wing, 26, Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006.
V.PARTHIBAN,J.
gsk W.P.No.19854 of 2009 14.09.2017