M. L. SINGLA versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 20-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
455
M. L. SINGLA
v.
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.1841 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Service Law – Dismissal from service – Appellant was dismissed
from service, on basis of a domestic enquiry, by the respondent
no.1-bank on the ground of misconduct – Labour Court set aside
the order of the dismissal and granted appellant 50% back wages
along with reinstatement – High Court set aside the award of the
Labour Court – On appeal, held: Labour Court committed
jurisdictional error as it failed to decide the validity and legality of
the domestic enquiry and thereafter, if domestic enquiry was found
to be legal and proper, then it was to consider the proportionality
of the punishment given to the appellant – Furthermore, while
awarding 50% backwages, the Labour Court did not examine the
question as to whether the appellant had pleaded and proved with
aid of evidence that he was not gainfully employed after dismissal
from service – High Court also failed to notice the jurisdictional
errors committed by the Labour Court – However, there was no
ground to interfere in the conclusion arrived by the High Court
which resulted in upholding of the dismissal order – On perusal of
the enquiry proceedings along with the Enquiry Report, no case
was made out to hold that the domestic enquiry suffered from any
procedural lapse or was conducted in violation of the principle of
natural justice thereby causing any prejudice to the rights of the
appellant – Order of dismissal passed against the appellant was
neither wrong and nor disproportionate to the gravity of charges –
Thus, punishment of dismissal upheld – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
– s.11-A.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Labour Court committed more than one
jurisdictional error in answering the Reference. The first error
was that it failed to decide the validity and legality of the domestic
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 455
   455
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
enquiry.  Since the dismissal order was based on the domestic
enquiry, it was obligatory upon the Labour Court to first decide
the question as a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic
enquiry was legal and proper. If the answer to the question on
the preliminary issue was that the domestic enquiry is legal and
proper, the next question to be considered by the Labour Court
was whether the punishment of dismissal from the service is
commensurate with the gravity of the charges or is
disproportionate requiring interference in its quantum by the
Labour Court. If the answer to this question was that it is
disproportionate, the Labour Court was entitled to interfere in
the quantum of punishment by assigning reasons and substitute
the punishment in place of the one imposed by respondent No.1-
Bank.  This the Labour Court could do by taking recourse to the
powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
[Paras 19, 20, 22 and 23] [462-E-H; 464-A-B]
1.2  While deciding this question, it was not necessary for
the Labour Court to examine as to whether the charges are made
out or not. In other words, the enquiry for deciding the question
should have been confined to the factors such as-what is the nature
of the charge(s), its gravity, whether it is major or minor as per
rules, the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charges, the
employee’s overall service record and the punishment imposed
etc.  [Para 24] [464-G]
2.  The second error was that the Labour Court called upon
the parties to lead evidence on all the issues including the charge
of misconduct in the first instance itself.  [Para 29][464-G]
3. The third error committed by the Labour Court was that
it proceeded to examine the findings of the Enquiry Officer on
the charges like an Appellate Court, appreciated the evidence
adduced before the Enquiry Officer and the one adduced before
it and then came to a conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry
Officer are perverse. This the Labour Court could not do.
[Para 30] [464-H; 465-A]
4.  Assuming that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to
direct the parties in the first instance itself to adduce evidence
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
457
on merits in support of the charges yet, it was obligatory upon
the Labour Court to first frame the preliminary issue on the
question of legality and validity of the domestic enquiry and confine
its discussion only for examining the legality and propriety of the
enquiry proceedings. [P

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