SHAMBU NATH GOYAL versus BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 85 · Decided: 27-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHAMBU NATH GOYAL 
v. 
BANK: OF BARODA AND OTHERS 
September 27, 1983 
(0. A. DBSAI, 0. CHINNAPPA RBDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ. 
Industrial Disputes 'Act, 1947-Secs. _ 10 and 33~Proceedings under-
Employer's right to adduce additional evidence before Labour Court/Industrial 
Tribunal-Not an independent right-Application for that purpose must be made 
at the earliest stage. Labour Court may consider a11d refuse such a request if 
made at a late stage. 
The appellant was working as a clerk in a branch of the first respondent 
Bank. He was issued a notice· by Jhe Deputy General Manager of the Bank 
informing him about the decision to hold departmental enquiry against him 
and also that one Sen Gupta, Agent of another branch of the Bank had been 
appointed as the Enquiry Officer and that any appeal rising out of his Order 
could be made to the Chief Agent of the Bank at Delhi. The Enquiry Officer 
held an enquiry. found the appellant guilty of the .,charges and proposed to 
award the punshment of dismissal. The a'ppellant protested against the proposed 
punisthment and stated that the enquiry was arbitrary, biased and improper. 
The Enquiry Officer diSmissed the appellant. An appeal filed by the appellant 
was dismissed by the appellate authority. On behalf of the appellant the 
'Union raisCd an industrial dispute and the Central GoVernment ultimately 
made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the dispute · 
was not an industrial dispute. In appellant's appeal by special leave this 
court held that the dispute was an industrial dispute and remanded the 
matter to the Tribunal. 
The Tribunal held that the doll)estic -enquiry 
was vitiated 'and not in accordance with the principles of riatural justice. The 
Tribunal further held. that Sen Gupta was not clothed with an.Y authority to 
award the punishment of dismissal as disciplinary authority and that no useful 
purpose would, therefore, be served ·by allowing the management to lead fresh 
evidence in the enquiry be,fore it as requested by the management in its appli .. 
cation. The Tribunal set aside the disn1issal and ordered reinstatement of the 
appeUant with full back wages. The High Court took the view that Sen Gupta 
was also the disciplinary authority as per the notice of enquiry arid quashed the 
Tribunal's Award and remitted the Cnquiry to the Tribunal for affording an 
opportunity to the management for letting in further evidence to support the 
charges before the Tribunal. In this appeal the appellant submitted that the 
Enquiry Officer was nOt the appointing autbority and that the order of 
dismiss~l passed by him is invalid in law. 
Allowing the app~al, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
" 
86 • 
SUPRllMB COURT REPORT~ 
(1984) 1 s.c.R. 
HELD : It is diffi.Cult to say that the order of dismissal suffers from 
any lack of authority of Sen Gupta to award that punishment. The 1nanage-
ment's reqi.Iest for giving an Opportunity to lead further evidence tO support 
th~ charges before the Tribunal made at that late stage cann,ot be allowed. 
[99 H; 103 DJ 
From the fact that Sen Gupta has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer 
in the notice.of enquiry dated 23-7-1965 and that it has been stated in that 
notice that any appeal from his order could be made to Majumdar, Chief 
Agent of the Bank at Delhi, it could be inferred tl:iat Sen' Gl,lpta had been 
constituted also as the 'disciplinary· authority as otherwise it would not have 
becri stated in that notice that any appeal against his order which cOuld 
naturally include an order in1posing punishment pursuant to any finding,, 
recorded in the. domestic enquiry conducted by him should be presented before· 
the Chief Agent of the Bank at Delhi. The workman also understood Sen 
Gupta to be functioning also as the disciplinary authority in the enquiry when 
he did not question his authority to award the punishn1ent but 1nerely stated 
that the enquiry was·arbitrary, biased and improper. It would appear from 
para 521(12) of the Sa~tri Award which has been bodily incorporated in para 
18.20(12) of the Desai Award that.it is not necessary that only the appointing 
authority or any authority superior to that authority can be the disciplinary 
auttority in regard to·employees of a ban~ and, that on the oth~r hand the . 
bank should d.ecide .which officer shall be empowered 
(Q take disciplinary 
actiOn in the case of each office or establishment and that it should also make 
Provision for 

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