Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., challenged the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal which upheld the Labour Court's order setting aside the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent, Manik s/o Ambadas Toge, who was working as an Agent/Cashier at the bank's Shelgaon branch. The respondent was suspended on 30.03.2015 and served with a charge-sheet alleging misappropriation of funds arising out of financial irregularities noticed in the audit report. It was discovered that as against the subsidy of Rs.3,27,53,855/- to be disbursed to 4769 members whose crops were destroyed due to hailstorm, an amount of Rs.3,32,00812/- was disbursed to 4458 members, resulting in extra disbursement of Rs.4,46,957/- and non-disbursal to 311 members. The total financial irregularity was Rs.12,51,591/-, and the respondent was held responsible for Rs.8,49,741/-, out of which he repaid Rs.1,00,000/- on 20.07.2015. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by Mr. N. L. Shaikh and Mr. B. B. Gadekar, who held the respondent and four others responsible. A domestic enquiry was conducted by Mr. H. T. Kakade as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the respondent guilty. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The respondent raised an industrial dispute, and the Labour Court set aside the dismissal order. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the Labour Court's order. The petitioner bank challenged the same before the High Court. The High Court held that the labour court has the power to reappreciate evidence and the evidence adduced before it prevails over the enquiry findings. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Evidence in Domestic Enquiry vs Labour Court - Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The short issue is which evidence would prevail for determining correctness of punishment order - the one recorded in domestic enquiry or the one adduced before the labour court? - Held that the labour court has power to reappreciate evidence and the evidence adduced before it prevails over enquiry findings (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Which evidence would prevail for determining correctness of punishment order — the one recorded in domestic enquiry or the one adduced before the labour court?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal.
Law Points
- Evidence in domestic enquiry vs evidence before labour court
- Reappreciation of evidence by labour court
- Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Proportionality of punishment
- Misappropriation of funds by bank employee
