Jharkhand High Court
Management Of Uco Bank vs Union Of India & Others on 13 June, 2022
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (L) No. 3883 of 2014
........
Management of UCO Bank, Ranchi .... ..... Petitioner Versus Union of India & Others .... ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Prasad, Advocate.
Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents-UOI : Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, CGC. For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Anil Kr. Ganjhu, Advocate.
........
11/13.06.2022.
Heard, learned counsel, Mr. R.N. Prasad assisted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gyanendra Kumar.
The petitioner, being the Employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank, Ranchi, through Sri Bishwanath Nanda, the Deputy Zonal Head, Zonal Office, Ranchi, Sainik Market, Main Road, Ranchi, has preferred this writ petition against the award dated 22.07.2013 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 1), Dhanbad in Reference No. 258/2000, whereby the reference made by Order No. L-12012/66/2000-IR-(B- II), dated 11.09.2000, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for adjudication of this Tribunal;
"Whether the dismissal of Shree Pradeep Kumar from service vide order dated 14.01.1999 by the management of UCO Bank is proper, justified and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted, that the learned Presiding Officer while deciding the award has not considered the domestic enquiry and disciplinary proceeding conducted by the petitioner and thus came to a wrong finding, as such, the impugned order is bad in law.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu has opposed the prayer and has submitted, that earlier the -2- preliminary point with regard to departmental enquiry conducted by the management was not considered fair and proper by the learned Tribunal. The said order of learned Tribunal has not been assailed by the petitioner - Bank before any appropriate authority nor they can prove before the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 1), Dhanbad that proper and fair enquiry was conducted and thus, the learned Tribunal has held that charges neither have been proved in the departmental enquiry nor before the Tribunal and the workman be reinstated, without any back wages whatsoever.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, Mr. Anil Kumar Ganjhu has further submitted that during pendency of the proceeding, Workman Pradeep Kumar has died, therefore, the learned Tribunal has ordered that all the financial and service benefits is to be granted to his wife, as such, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court.
Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the petitioner and respondents, it appears that the preliminary issue with regard to departmental enquiry conducted by the bank management was found not fair and proper and the Bank has not preferred any appeal or writ against the said order. Accordingly, after the full-fledged trial of the reference, the learned Tribunal has held that the charges neither have been proved in the departmental enquiry nor before this Tribunal, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 1), Dhanbad for necessary direction.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-