(Judgment of the court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.) Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge confirming the award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.2 of 1991, dated 26.6.2009, the present writ appeal has been preferred.
2. According to the appellant, the employee, who is the respondent herein, has misappropriated money by way of tampering of records and forging and thereby committed serious misconduct and that the enquiry officer submitted a report finding that the charges were proved and based on the same, he was dismissed from service. In the Industrial Dispute raised, the employee questioned the fairness of the domestic enquiry. The Industrial Tribunal arrived at a finding that the enquiry conducted was not fair and it was vitiated and thereby ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. By contending that the bank was not given any opportunity to lead evidence, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.12337 of 1994 wherein, the employer was given an opportunity to lead evidence to establish the charges. The petitioner Bank has also let in evidence before the Industrial Tribunal wherein only MW1 was examined and no material was produced and that the crucial document viz., CBI report was not filed. In the meantime, the appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank in W.A.No.2334 of 2004 was dismissed by this court and the S.L.P. preferred by the petitioner-Bank also came to be dismissed.
3. In this backdrop, the petitioner-bank, has filed the present writ appeal submitting that the employee has committed serious misconduct and therefore, if any indulgence is shown, it would paralyse the entire administration of the bank and the public will lose confidence on the bank.
4. Per contra, Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the employee would submit after the remand, when an opportunity was provided to the petitioner-Bank to prove the charges, it is the duty of the bank to establish the charges before the Industrial Tribunal and having failed to establish the same, seeking indulgence of this court by way of a miscellaneous petition to introduce a new document, which was not part of the record, cannot be a correct practice and that the Industrial Tribunal has rightly observed that the employee, being sub-staff of the bank, could not be held solely responsible for the charges and that the Bank has not taken any action against the officials who were working at the relevant point of time.
5. The Tribunal, after taking note of the evidence let in, passed an award for reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages, and while confirming the same, the learned Single Judge has observed as under, which has been confirmed by this court:-
"Since the second respondent has already attained the age of superannuation, question of reinstatement would not arise at this stage, as directed by the first respondent in the impugned award. However, in respect of all other benefits as has been directed by the first respondent in the impugned Award, the second respondent shall be fully eligible and entitled. Therefore, the petitioner Bank is directed to settle those service benefits to the second respondent, as directed by the first respondent in the order impugned, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
6. In the case of MADRAS ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED v. LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE AND ANOTHER (1992 II LLN 101), it has been held that any plea or material not produced before the court below, cannot be sought to be introduced and tested before this court for the first time. In view of the above judgment, we find that the appellant/petitioner, having failed to establish the charges before the Labour Court, the fact finding authority, by producing the CBI report which is sought to be introduced now and which were very much available by that time, this court, sitting in appeal, cannot come to a different conclusion that the order of the learned Single Judge needs interference or the award of the Industrial Tribunal is perverse.
In view of the above, the writ appeal is dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.
(H.G.R.,J.)(S.V.N.,J.) 27.6.2017 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ssk.
To:
The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai-600 104.
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.
AND S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
ssk.
W.A.No.372 of 2017 27.6.2017.