JAI BHAGWAN versus THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AMBALA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 158 · Decided: 29-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
158 
JAIBHAGWAN 
V. 
THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AMBALA CENTRAL 
COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED.AND ANOTHER 
September 29, 1983 
(D. A. DESAI, 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.J 
Industrial Dis]iutes Act, 1947-Domestic enquiry-No charge sh1et or show 
·cause notice for termination of services issued-No indication of guilt of employel! 
in the report-Services terminated-Enquiry-Whether violates principles of 
natural justice-Failure to appeal to higher a1Uhority, whether bars tribunal's 
jurisdiction. 
There was a complaint from an account holder, of the respondent bank 
that his accpunt was wrongly debited with a big sum of money even though he 
had never issued a.cheque for that sum. The appellant, a clerk-cum-cashier, 
was appareD.tJy suspected to be responsible for tl~e presentation of the cheque. · 
The bank lodged a complaint with the police but the ippellant. was .eventually, 
discharged. In the meanwhile. the bank placed him under suspension. An 
Cnquiry as to the genuineness of the customer's ·complaint was ordered. The . 
appellant was advised to be present at the enquiry but no charge-sheet was 
ever served oflhim. In his rePort. the enquiry officer stated that •'there liea 
the possibility that the complaint_ of the applicant may .be genuine.'' 
But there 
was no indication in the report that the appellant had anything to do with 
the presentation of the cheque. Yet, on basis of this report the appellant's 
services were terminated: Thereafter the appellant raisCd an industriaJ dispute. 
The Industrial Tribunal, I-ejecting the appellant's contention that principles. of 
natural justice had not been observed uphClci theorder of termination of his 
services. 
. 
In the workman's appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of 
the respondent that the appetlan.t ought to have pursued the reriiedy of appeal· 
ing to the B'oard of Management against the order -of termination and ·his 
failure to do so disentitJed him from raising any industrial dispute. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : ,The order terminating the services of the appellant was wholly 
unsustainabJe. The appellant is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of 
service from the date of termination of his services. There Was total nen-
app!ication of the mind by the Trib.unal. [161 G; 164 D; 162 HJ 
There was a total breach of the princip1~s of natural justice: the appellant 
wa~ never asked tq al'.!swer an>' chars;e; there w~s no enquiry a~ainst h~.p:i; no 
[ 
JAi BllAGWAN V. AMBALA COOP. BANK 
159 
notice was issued to him to show cause why his services should not be termi-
nated and even the order terminating his services fa'iled to mention any reason. 
The Bank should have led necessary evidence to prove the charge against the 
appellant. None of the three witnesses examined ,by the Bank could either prove 
that the cheque was a forgery or that it had been presented by the appellant. 
The enquiry was not directed against the 3.ppellant but was held with a view 
to find out whether there was any truth in the customer's complaint. The 
enquiry officer did D.qt say that the appellant was guilty or had anything to do 
with the presentation of the bogus cheque. T!J,e complainant, who would have 
been the most crucial Witne~s, was not examined. [161 F; H; 162 A; C-El 
Notwithstanding all this, by a curious process of reasoning the Indus-
trial Tribunal upheld the order of termination, dismissing the appellant's 
contention that principles of natural justice had not been observed. The 
Tribunal's observation that strict rules of evidence were not applicable to 
domestic enquiries and that "not too much legalism was expected in such 
matters from the enquiry officer" was far from correct. In short, the Tribunal, 
without applying its mind to the facts of the case and without bothering to· 
peruse the records, gave a findings that the termination of his services was 
justified. The Tribunal's findings ~nd conclusion we're therefore worthless. 
[162 B-G; H; 163 B-C] 
Raising an industrial dispute is a well-recognised and legitimate mode 
of redress available to a workman, which has achieved statutory recognition 
under the Act and there is no reason why a statute-recognised mode of redress 
should be d~nied to a workman because of the existence or availability of 
another remedy. Nor has an industrial tribunal, to whiqh a dispute had been 
referred for adjudication, the power to refuse to adjudicate upon it and 
surrender its jurisd

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