MAVJI C LAKUM versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 02-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 1001 
-, 
MAVJI C LAKUM 
A 
v. 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 
(Civil Appeal No. 2385 of 2008) 
APRIL 2, 2008 
8 
[S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 11-A - Departmental 
inquiry - Punishment of discharge - Industrial Tribunal held 
that the inquiry was proper, but finding the punishment c 
disproportionate to the misconduct, reduced the punishment 
to withholding of one increment - Writ petition - Dismissal of 
by Single Judge of High Court- Writ appeal dismissed- On 
appeal, held: The Industrial Tribunal, by reappreciating the 
judgment, in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 11-A, was justified D 
in interfering with the quantum of punishment - Even if 
" 
departmental inquiry is found to be fair, the Tribunal would still 
be justified in re-appreciating the evidence and/or interfering 
with the quantum of punishment. 
Letters· Patent Appeal - Order passed in writ petition E 
challenged in writ appeal - Maintainability of - Held: Since, in 
the facts of the case, writ petition was filed under Article 226 as 
w.ell as 227, the writ appeal was maintainable against the order 
passed therein - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 
and 227. 
F 
. 
' 
Appellant was employed with the respondent Bank . 
He was found guilty of few charges. On two accounts he 
was given punishment of discharge and on other proved 
charges, punishment of stopping of increments was 
given. Disciplinary Authority inflicted a composite G 
punishment of discharge. Departmental appeal was 
dismissed. industrial Disputes Tribunal held that the 
inquiry was just and proper, but the punishment was 
found to be disproportionate. Setting aside the 
1001 
H 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A punishment of discharge, punishment of withholding of 
one increment with future effect was imposed. The order 
of the tribunal was challenged by the respondent-Bank 
in writ petition before High Court. Single Judge of the High 
Court allowed the petition. Writ appeal thereagainst was 
B dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The writ appeal was maintainable. 
Division Bench of High court erred in treating the matter 
C falling only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 
In the present matter apart from the fact that the petition 
is labeled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it · 
is clear that the grounds raised in the petition suggest 
that the petition is not only under Article 227 but also under 
Article 226 of the Constitution. After- reading the writ 
D petition it is clear that the contentions raised and the facts 
stated in the petition justify the respondent to file an 
application both under Articles 226 and 227 of the 
Constitution of India. [Paras 12 and 15] [1013-D; 1010-B; 
1009-F-G] 
E 
Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mud/iyar and Ors. V. 
Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha and Ors. (1993) Supp. 1 
SCC 11; Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. V Radhikabai, 
Widow of Anandrao Banapurkar and Anr. 1986 (Supp) SCC 
F 401; Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. V Shankar Prasad 1999 
(6) SCC 275; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 
2003 (6) sec 675 - relled on. 
1.2 It is not correct to say that the Single Judge at the 
end of his judgment had given certain directions which 
G were in the nature of the directions given under Article 
227 of the Constitution of India. The Judge himself has 
clearly stated that his suggestion to the bank to award 
50% of the back-wages, in view of the long service of the 
appellant, was merely a recommendation and not a 
H direction and that it was for the bank to take the decision 
. . 
-
MAVJI C LAKUM v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 
1003 
in this behalf. Therefore, this is not a case where any A 
direction as such is issued under Article 227 of the 
Constitution. The recommendation made by the Single 
Judge, as has been stated in the judgment itself, cannot 
amount to a direction made under Article 227 of the 
Constitution of India. Such directions are not made to the B 
parties, the directions contemplated under Article 227 are 
to the concerned authorities against whose order the writ 
petition is filed. [Para 13] [1010-B, C, D, E] 
2.1 The Tribunal was justified in appreciating the fact 
that the charges were not only trivial and were not so C 
serious as to entail the extreme punishment of disctiarge. 
Here the evidence was of a most general nature and the 
charges were also not such as would have invited the 
extrem
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.