J. D. JAIN versus THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1982] 2 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 17-12-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
I 
J. D. JAIN 
v. 
THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF 
INDIA & ANR. 
December 17, 1981 
[V.D. TULZAPURKAR, BAHARUL ISLAM AND 
A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.) 
227 
Constitution of India 1950, Art. 226-Award of Industrial Tribunal-Jurisdic-
tion of High Court-interference-When arises. 
Industrial Disputes Act 1947, S. lJA-Comp/aint-Depositor against bank 
employee-Debit authority alteration of-Withdrawal of excess money-Confession 
by employee to officer of alteration and withdrawal-Holding of domestic enquiry-
D 
Non examination of depositor-Chari:e of.fraud and misappropriation proved-
Employee discharged from service-Dispute raised-Issue referred to Tribunal-
Tribunal holding depositor (complainant) not examined-Evidence against employee 
'hearsay'-Direcring reinstatement-High Court in writ petilion setting aside 
award of tribunal-High Court whether correct in interfering with award-Award 
whether vitiated by misconception of law. 
Labour Law-Domestic enquiry-Guilt whether to be established beyond 
reasonable doubt-Proof of misconduct alone-Whether sufficient, 
Words & Phrases 'hearsay'-Meaning of 
E 
The Appellant was working as a Cashier in a Bank. A depositor who had 
a Savings Bank Account with the Bank came 10 the Bank to receive his Pass 
ID' 
Book. On receipt of his Pass Book from the Counter Clerk he complained to 
the ledger keeper that on a certain date he had withdrawn only Rs. 500 but a 
debit entry of Rs, l ,500 had been shown in the Pass Book. The Ledger kc~f)er 
took the depositor to the Supervisor and the Agent and his complaint was 
recorded. When the documents pertaining to the withdrawal were examined it 
was found that the depositor had given a letler of authority to the appellant 
authorising withdrawal from his account. The letter of authority showed that it 
G 
was for withdrawal of Rs. l 500 though there appeared to be some interpolation 
suggesting that the figure of Rs. 500 had been altered to the figure of Rs. l 500. 
A memorandum of charge was served on the appellant by the Management 
respondent No. I and a disciplinary enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer 
submitted his report and his findings were that the appellant had fraudulently 
altered the amount in the letter of authority given by the depcsitor, withdrew 
Rs. 1500 from the depositor's account and paid Rs. 500 only to the depositor and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
228 
SUPilEMil COURT REPORTS 
[1982) 2 S.C.R. 
misappropriated Rs.1500. In pursuance of the enquiry the appellant was dischar-
ged from service. 
The appellant having raised an industrial dispute the matter was referred to 
the Industrial Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the appellant denied the charges 
and pleaded that as the depositor was not examined in the discplinary enquiry 
there was no legal evidence before the Enquiry Officer for finding that he was 
guilty. Before the Tribunal the Management examined no witnesses but 
produced documents and relied on them. The Tribunal held that on the evidence 
before it the appellant could not be held guilty as in the absence of the evidence 
of the depositor, the evidence recorded was 'hearsay' and directed re-instatement 
of the appellant with full back wages. 
The respondent moved the High Court under Article 226 and 227 which 
held that the charge against the appellant had been established and quashed the 
award of the Tribunal. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant : (1) 
that the Tribunal exercised its powers under Section 1 !A of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act and the High Court exercising powers under Article 226/227 had no 
jurisdiction to interfere with the award ; (2) the Tribunal rightly refused to rely 
on the evidence which was hearsay; the depositor not having been examined, 
and (3) the High Court committed an error in not considering the receipt execut-
ed by the depositor showing payment of Rs. 1000 to the depositor. 
, 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The award of the Tribunal is vitiated by misconception of the law 
involved. It erred in holding that as Kansai (depositor) was not examined, fraud 
and misappropriation on the part of appellant cannot be held to be proved and in 
failing to appreciate the confession made by the appellant to the higher officer 
that he had altered the amount in figures and words in his own band. [236 G] 
I. In an application for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 for quashing 
the award of an Industrial Tribunal the jurisdiction of the High Court is lim

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