CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD. versus KARUNAMOY BANERJEE

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 18-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
' 
& 
a 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD. 
v. 
KARUNAMOY BANERJEE 
August 18, 1967 
[M. HIDAYATIJLLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Industrial 
DiSp!Jte-Domestic 
Enquiry-Emplot1ee 
admitting 
charges and pleading extenuating Circumstances-Examining him 
before other witnesses and asking him questions whether violative 
of natural justice. 
The respondent who .was an 
employee of. the appellant bank 
was charged with issuing unauthorised overdrafts to a constituent. 
A domestic enquiry 'Nas held against him. In two written expla-
nations before the enquiry he admitted• the allegations against hfm 
and. only pleaded extenuating 
circumstances. At the enquiry he 
was examined in the first instance; havin~ again admitted his fault 
he· W'as asked certain questions by the Enquiry Officer in respect 
of the extenuating 
circumstances pleaded by him. Two more 
witnesses were then 
examined by the Enquiry Officer. Finallv, 
according to the latter's report the respondent was discharged. In 
proceedings under s: 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute.• Act, 1947 
the Labour Court, Dhanbad held that the enquiry was bad for viola-
tion .of natural justice inasmuch as the respondent had 1:een 
examined before other witnesses and was unduly cross-examined. 
The bank .appealed by special leave. 
Held: The rules of natural justice as laid down by this Court 
have. to be observed in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a 
workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman the bur-
den of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the manage-
ment; and the witnesses called by the management must be allowed 
to be cross-examined. by the workman and . the latter must also be 
given an opportunitv to examine himse If and adduce any other 
evidence that he might choose. in support of his plea. Bqt if the 
workman admits his ~ui!t, to insist upon the management to let In 
evidence about the allegations will be an empty formality. In such 
a case it will be open to the management to examine the workman 
himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any 
explanation for his con.duct, or to place tefore .the management any 
circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of .the offence. 
But, even• then; • the examination of the workman. under such cir-
cumstances, should not savour of an inquisition. If, after the exa-
mination . of the workman the management chooses to examine any 
witnesses, the workman must be given a reasonable opportunity to 
cr~xamine . those witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence 
that he may choose. [2590-F] 
· · Iii the present case the respondent in his written explanations 
had admitted the charges and therefore there was no violation of 
natural justice In first examining him. The questions put· to him 
were not unfair. The Labour Court was W'l'ong in not giving appro-
val to his discharge. [258F; 259A, G] 
. 
AssOciiited Cement Co. Ltd.,. v. Workman [1964] 3 S C.R. 652, 
distinguished. 
. · 
St!'jlwboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gob!nd, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
618, referred to. 
· 
281 
'2li2 
S1Jl'REME COURT llEPORTS 
(1968) 1 S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 440. of 
A 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated May 30, 1964 
of the Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad in Applica-
tion No. L.P. 123 of 1962. 
H. R. Gokhale, C. L. Ohopra, P. C. Bhartari, and O. C. 
B 
Mathur, for the appellant. 
Janardan Sharma, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the 
appellant Bank, is directed against the order, dated May 13, 1964, 
of the Central Labour Court. Dhanbad. rejecting an application. 
filed by the Bank, under s. 33(2)(b), .of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). and declin-
ing to grant approval of the action taken, by the· Bank, by way 
of discharging the respondent-workman, from the Bank"s services. 
The respondent was, at the material time, the Assistant Ac· 
countant, at the main Office of the Bank, at Calcutta. In view 
of certain serious irregularities, noticed by the. Bank, in respect 
of the work of the respondent in the 1Current Accounts Depart-
ment and, in particular, in current account ledgers Nos. 4 and 6. 
by order dated March 8, 1961, the respondent was suspended, 
with immediate effect. 
He was also 
informed t~at the charges 
against him would be communicated, in due course. 
By a further 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.