UNITED BANK OF INDIA versus TAMIL NADU BANKS DEPOSIT COLLECTORS UNION AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 949 · Decided: 05-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
UNITED BANK OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
TAMIL NADU BANKS DEPOSIT COLLECTORS 
UNION AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 5, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Termination-Upheld by Tribunal-High Court reversed the order c 
holding that the Tribunal erred in permitting the employer to lead 
evidence to justify termination-Correctness of-Held: Not correct, 
since no finding recorded that permission was wrongly granted-Wrong 
_, 
permission granted to lead evidence and absence of acceptable D 
evidence are conceptually different-High Court apparently got 
confused between the two concepts. 
Appellant-bank terminated the engagement of two Deposit 
Collectors. They raised industrial dispute. Industrial Tribunal 
answered the reference in favour of the bank. 
E 
High Court reversed the order, holding that the Deposit 
Collectors were workmen and, since their termination orders did not 
disclose any specific reason for termination nor referred to any 
misco .. duct, the Tribunal erred in permitting the appellant-bank to F 
rely upon documents and materials to justify its action and, also that 
no acceptable evidence was placed before the Tribunal to justify the 
orders of termination. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: There is no finding recorded that the permission was G 
wrongly granted to appellant-bank to lead evidence to justify the 
order of termination. A wrong permission granted to lead evidence 
and absence of acceptable evidence are conceptually different. The 
949 
H 
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A High Court appears to have been confused between the two concepts. 
[Para 11] [957-B-C] 
Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Limitedv. Motipur 
Sugar Factory, [1965] 3 SCR 588; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. 
B v. Ludh Budh Singh, [1973] 3 SCR 29 and Workmen of Fire Stone Tyre 
Rubber Company v. Management, (1973) 1LLJ78, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE nJRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5344 of 
2005. 
C 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2004 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 166011997. 
D 
Dhruv Mehta and Harshvardhan Jha (for K.L. Mehta & Co.) for 
the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARI.TIT P ASAY AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the 
order Passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowing 
the writ appeal filed by the respondents. 
E 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
Two persons named Koshi Kottikeran and Liakath Ali were engaged 
as Commission agents with the appellant Bank in its Coimbatore Branch. 
On 11.IO.I984 and I2J2.1984 engagements ofKoshi Kottikeran and 
Liakath Ali came to be terminated by the appellant-Bank. Respondent 
F No. I -The Union raised two disputes purported to be an industrial dispute 
with regard to alleged termination of the aforesaid two persons. The matter 
was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu (in short the 'Tribunal') 
I.D. Case Nos.26 and 44 of I987. Appellant Bank took the stand that 
these two persons were not workmen and in any event the dis-engagement 
G was legal, justified and permissible. The Tribunal passed a common award 
answering the reference against the claimant and in favour of the 
management. 
Aggrieved by the award the respondent No. I-Union preferred Civil 
H Writ Petition No. I 5538 of I 997 before the Madras High Court. 
I· 
.• 
UNITEDBANKOFINDIAv. TAMILNADUBANKS 
951 
DEPOSIT COLLECTORS UNION [PASAYAT,J.] 
Learned Single judge by order dated 15.10.1997 dismissed the writ A 
petition. The Union carried the matter further in writ appeal. By the 
impugned order the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ · 
appeal. The High Court came to hold that a Tiny Deposit Collector was 
a workman. Therefore, it is a valid dispute, and the dispute referred to 
can be adjudicated by the Tribunal. It referred to the letters of B 
disengagement and came to hold that the tennination orders disclosed that 
they were simple orders of termination. That being so no specific reason 
for termination of services was disclosed. They did not refer to any 
misconduct and therefore there was no justification for the Tribunal to 
permit the appellant-bank to rely upon documents and materials to justify c 
the orders. It was also held that there was absolutely no acceptable 
evidence placed before the Tribunal to justify the orders of termination. 
Accordingly writ appeal was allowed. 
-• 
3. Learned counsel for the 

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