Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner is an employee of the respondent bank. On 21.9.2004, a show cause notice with 11 charges was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner sent a reply on 4.10.2004. Since the said reply was not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. After conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that out of 11 charges, charge Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 11 were proved and charge No.7 was partly proved and charge Nos.10 and 11 were not proved. After giving an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the finding of the proposed punishment of dismissal, on 2.12.2005, the disciplinary authority viz., Assistant General Manager, Mylapore Branch, Chennai, passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. Against the punishment of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority viz., Deputy General Manager, SME, Local Head Office, Chennai. In the said appeal, the punishment of dismissal was modified into one of removal from service with superannuation benefits by showing leniency. Challenging the punishment of removal from service, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute. By order dated 4.12.2006, the Government of India referred the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai and the same was numbered as I.D.No.90 of 2006. After hearing both sides, on 15.5.2009, the Tribunal passed an award holding that the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner is just and proper and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.21623 of 2009. In the said writ petition, the petitioner contended that the Presiding Officer is not familiar with Tamil and his mother tongue is Malayam and during the enquiry proceedings, the translated copies of the enquiry proceedings were not available before him. Hence, by taking note of the said fact, the learned single Judge of this Court has set aside the award dated 15.5.2009 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the matter within a time frame. The learned single Judge has also directed the petitioner to make English translation of the enquiry proceedings, which were in Tamil. After remand, the Tribunal has passed an award on 30.4.2012 directing the respondent bank to reinstate the petitioner into service without backwages, but with continuity of service and with all other attendant benefits, by invoking the powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, observing that an employee should be given some chance to correct himself and repent his past thereby enabling him to be a righteous person. Aggrieved over the said award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent bank filed W.P.No.24952 of 2012 and the petitioner filed W.P.No.2529 of 2013. This Court, by a common order dated 17.10.2014, set aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent bank and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Now, the present review petitions have been filed by the petitioner to review the said common order.

5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent bank submitted that absolutely there is no error apparent on the face of the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the question of reviewing the order passed by this Court does not arise in this case. Further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner has not made out any valid legal ground for reviewing the order of this Court. In fact, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in a just and proper manner. After having come to such conclusion, the Tribunal has made an interference under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act stating that the petitioner should be given one more chance to correct himself to repent his past. Since the interference made by the Tribunal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not legally sustainable, this Court by correctly considering the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent bank and consequently, dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, absolutely, there is no need for reviewing the order passed by this Court in the writ petitions. In this regard, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent bank has also relied upon the judgment reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715 - Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others and (1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 596 - Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others.

6. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record.

7. The only question that falls for consideration is, whether the petitioner has made out any ground to review the order of this Court dated 17.10.2014 made in W.P.Nos.2529 of 2013 and 24952 of 2012 respectively.

8. The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer without considering the evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner properly, passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. Hence, the Industrial Tribunal had interfered with the order. But, this Court had set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, by considering the evidence adduced on the side of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, the order passed by this Court has to be reviewed. But, in my considered opinion, as contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent bank, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in these review petitions. In fact, what was questioned before this Court in W.P.Nos.2529 of 2013 and 24952 of 2012 is, as to whether the Tribunal is right in making interference in the punishment imposed by the second respondent by invoking Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reason assigned by the Tribunal for interference is that an employee should be given some chance to correct himself and repent his past thereby enabling him to be a righteous person. But, this Court found that only if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority / appellate authority is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, by recording the reasons, the Tribunal can make an interference with the punishment imposed by the authority concerned. Thus, this Court has come to the conclusion that the reason assigned by the Tribunal for making interference by invoking Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not legally sustainable. In fact, the Tribunal has come to a specific conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. After having come to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has erroneously interfered with the punishment imposed by the second respondent. Only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, this Court can review its own order. But, here, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. Under the guise of reviewing the order, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. In this regard, a reference could be place in the judgment reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715 - Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, wherein, it has held as follows:-