Delhi High Court - Orders
Managing Director Axis Bank & Ors vs Presiding Officer Labour Court & Anr on 9 April, 2021
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4337/2021
MANAGING DIRECTOR AXIS BANK & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Abdhesh Chaudhary, Advocate
versus
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 09.04.2021 Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. CM APPL. 13252/2021 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4337/2021 & CM APPL. 13251/2021 Present petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the order/Award dated 18.11.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in ID Case NO. 109/2011. Learned counsel challenges the Award, inter alia, on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the Tribunal has wrongly concluded that Respondent No. 2 is a Workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the claim was maintainable before the Tribunal. It is argued that Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act clearly prescribes that person employed in a managerial or administrative capacity is not a Workman and therefore Respondent No. 2 who was a 'Business Development Executive', was clearly entrusted with managerial, supervisory and administrative tasks and is not a 'Workman'.
It is next contended that the Tribunal failed to consider that several complaints for misappropriation, fraud, cheating, embezzlement etc. were received by the Bank from many of its customers, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and in the Criminal Case No. 433/2013, charge sheet has been filed and the case is at the stage of evidence. It is also argued that on account of the acts of Respondent No. 2, some of which included retaining of the customer's funds and not depositing the same in the customer's account as also taking money with a view to cheat the customers, Petitioner has lost confidence in him as an employee and keeping in view the nature of the job requirement in the Bank, once there is loss of confidence and faith, there is no reason why the Bank should continue to employ Respondent No. 2.
Issue notice.
Mr. Harish Kumar Garg accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and submits that a complete set of legible paper book be supplied to him to enable him to file a reply. Let complete set of legible paper book be supplied to Mr. Garg within two days from today through electronic mode.
Issue notice to Respondent No. 2, through all permissible modes, on the Petitioner taking requisite steps, returnable on 16th July, 2021.
In the meantime, subject to the Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses in this Court or in the Bank account of Respondent No. 2, within a period of two weeks from today, operation of the impugned award is stayed till the next date of hearing.
JYOTI SINGH, J APRIL 9, 2021/rd