Supreme Court of India
Sushil Kumar Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 March, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(4)AWC3034(SC), (2001)IILLJ229SC, AIRONLINE 2001 SC 306, (2001) 1 JT (SUPP) 537, (2002) 4 ALL WC 3034, (2001) 2 LAB LJ 229
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Shivaraj V. Patil
ORDER
S. Rajendra Babu and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
1. A complaint was lodged on 21.4.1988 against the appellant by one Lakhan Singh who is customer of the Bank that he went to the Bank at 4.00 p.m. on 31.8.1987 to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,500 and gave the said amount to the appellant who also belongs to his village to deposit the said money. However, he had not deposited the said amount and when he got a notice from the Bank as to why he has not deposited the amount, he made the complaint. Later on the said complaint was withdrawn. However, the Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and after holding inquiry came to the conclusion that he is guilty of the charges framed against him in not having deposited the amount given by Lakhan Singh in due time and, therefore, withheld four increments with cumulative effect. Against that action, a dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The Labour Court, on examination of the material before it came to the conclusion that the inquiry held by the respondents is vitiated and called upon the Bank to adduce evidence in support of its case. The Bank examined its then manager who stated that he had received a complaint from Lakhan Singh and showed a receipt also in the handwriting of the appellant for having received a sum of Rs. 3,500 and that the appellant deposited the sum of Rs. 3,500 on 23.4.1988. However, in the cross-examination, it is stated that on 23.4.1988, Lakhan Singh came to withdraw the complaint and deposited Rs. 3,500.
2. The Labour Court felt that the complaint made by Lakhan Singh having been withdrawn, adequate proof was required as to what charge is leveled against the appellant as to misappropriation of the said amount of Rs. 3,500 and that charge was not established in the absence of evidence of Lakhan Singh and set aside the action taken by the Bank.
3. A writ petition was carried against the award and the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that the Labour Court had held that the inquiry was fair but the findings recorded by the inquiry Officer were perverse and, therefore, took the view that the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry were binding particularly in the light of the fact that there is some evidence to support the case.
4. We have noticed that on the other hand, the departmental inquiry was held to be vitiated and, therefore, independent evidence had to be led before the Labour Court. Such evidence was only in the shape of the examination of the Bank Manager and the documents regarding complaint given by Lakhan Singh and its subsequent withdrawal. In the light of the statement made by the Bank Manager in the course of his cross-
examination that Lakhan Singh deposited the said amount of Rs. 3,500 when he came to withdraw the complaint belied the fact alleged in the charge. Lakhan Singh was not examined to support the case of Bank who alone could have thrown proper light on the ambiguity arising on account of contradiction between answers given by the Bank Manager in examination-in-chief and cross-examination as to the deposit of money. Therefore, we think the Labour Court was justified in the conclusion it reached and the High Court ought not to have independently appraised to the evidence on record. In the circumstances we find the order made by the High Court needs to be set aside and that of the Labour Court award must be restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.