MANAGER, R.B.I., BANGALORE versus S. MANI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 797 · Decided: 14-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

MANAGER, R.B.I., BANGALORE 
A 
v. 
S. MANI AND ORS. 
MARCH 14, 2005 
{N. SANTOSH HEGDE, B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
Industrial Disputes Act, I947 
c 
Sections 25F and 25B-Reinstatement-Respondent-workmen appointed 
as "Ticca Mazdoors" (non-regular Mazdoors) in Reserve Bank of India(RBI) 
not absorbed in regular service for alleged misconduct-Request for re-
employment not granted-Industrial dispute-Tribunal directed re-instatement 
with full back wages on grounds that they had completed 240 days of service 
and their terminations were brought about without compliance of S.25F-On D 
facts, held : The findings of Tribunal are wholly perverse-It wrongly placed 
the burden of proof on Appellant-employer for considering if Respondents 
completed 240 days of service or not-It also erred in drawing adverse inference 
against the Appellant for non-production of attendance registers alone though 
sufficient explanation therefor was given-Hence, case for judicial review E 
made out-Direction for re-instatement for non-compliance with S.25F would 
only restore to the workmen the same status as before termination-Respondents 
would continue to be "Ticca Mazdoors" and cannot have any right to get 
work-Moreover, direction of continuity of services per se would not br~"lg 
them within purview of the settlement arrived at between RBI and the workers 
federation for absorption of "Ticca Mazdoors "-Constitution of India, I950- F 
Article I 36. 
Section 25B-Continuous service of 240 days during period of 12 months 
preceding the order of termination-Burden of proof-Held: Initial burden is 
on the workmen--Tribunal wrongly placed the burden of proof on the employer 
on the premise that it failed to prove its plea of abandonment of service by G 
the workmen. 
Misconduct-Effect of judgment of acquittal of accused-workmen in 
criminal proceedings vis-a-vis the alleged misconduct-Held : The acquittal 
797 
H 
798 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A passed in favour of the workman by giving benefit of doubt per se would not 
be binding upon the employer. 
Respondents, appointed as Ticca Mazdoors in Appellant-bank 
between March, 1980 and August, 1982, were not regularized in service 
as regular Mazdoors for the alleged misconduct of producing forged and 
B fabricated certificates at the time of interview. Criminal prosecutions 
were launched against them for furnishing false certificates but they 
stood acquitted. Subsequently, between 1987 and 1988, the Respondents 
submitted fresh certificates and requested Appellant to re-employ them. 
As the request was not accepted, an industrial dispute was raised. The 
C Industrial Tribunal held that Respondents having completed 240 days of 
service, and their terminations having been brought about without 
complying wi~h the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947, they were entitled to be reinstated·with full back wages. Writ 
petitions against the order were dismissed by Single Judge of High Court. 
Division Bench of the High Court modified the award of the Tribunal as 
D also the Single Judge holding that the back wages be paid only from 23-
7-1993 and not from the date of retrenchment, but gave liberty to 
Appellant to hold domestic enquiry against Respondents for the alleged 
misconduct. 
In appeal to this Court the Appellants contended that as the 
E Respondents did not report for duty between December, 1982 and March, 
1987, they must be held to have abandoned their services; that the 
Tribunal erred in failing to consider the fact that the Respondents failed 
to prove that they had completed 240 days of service during a period of 
12 months preceding the order of termination, hence, the question of 
F compliance of Section 25F of the Act did not arise at all and that in any 
event, only because the Respondents allegedly completed 240 days of 
work, the same by itself would not confer any right on them to be 
regularized in service; that no adverse inference could have been drawn 
against the Appellant for non-production of attendance register as 
sufficient explanation therefor had been furnished; that the burden of 
G proof in that behalf lay upon the Respondents .and that the action taken 
by the Appellant was not wholly arbitrary so as to justify a direction for 
reinstatement of the Respondents in service only on the ground that they 
stood acquitted in the criminal cases. 
H 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
MANAGER, R.B.l., BANGALORE v

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