Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions arising from an industrial dispute between an employee, Narendra Vitthalrao Tarsekar, and his employer, State Bank of India. The employee applied for a clerical post and submitted an attestation form on 14.10.2008, answering columns regarding prosecution/detention/conviction and pending proceedings in the negative. He was appointed on 05.01.2009 and joined on 09.03.2011. Subsequently, a police verification report dated 07.07.2011 revealed that an offence under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 was registered against the employee and was pending in court. The employer issued a charge-sheet on 22.11.2011 for failure to disclose this fact. After a domestic enquiry, the employee was dismissed from service. The employee raised an industrial dispute, and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Nagpur, by award dated 27.12.2017, set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice to the date of award. Both parties challenged the award: the employee sought full back wages, and the employer sought to uphold the dismissal. The High Court examined whether the non-disclosure was wilful suppression. It noted that the employee had disclosed the pending case in a subsequent form and that the employer failed to prove that the employee had knowledge of the requirement or that the suppression was intentional. The court held that the employer did not establish wilful suppression and that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate. The court upheld the tribunal's award of reinstatement but modified the back wages to 50% from the date of demand notice to the date of award, finding no error in the tribunal's discretion. The petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suppression of Material Facts - Wilful Suppression - The employer must prove that the employee wilfully suppressed material facts in the attestation form. Mere non-disclosure of a pending criminal case does not automatically justify termination unless the employer establishes that the employee had knowledge of the requirement and intentionally concealed the information. (Paras 10-12) B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reinstatement - Back Wages - The Industrial Tribunal has discretion to award reinstatement with back wages if the termination is found to be illegal. The court upheld the award of 50% back wages from the date of demand notice to the date of award, considering the employee's conduct and the employer's failure to prove wilful suppression. (Paras 13-15) C) Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 - Section 12 - Pending Prosecution - A pending prosecution under Section 12 of the Act does not amount to a conviction. The employer cannot treat a pending case as a conviction for the purpose of denying employment or terminating services without a finding of guilt. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employee's failure to disclose a pending criminal case under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 in the attestation form amounts to wilful suppression of material facts justifying termination of service, and whether the Industrial Tribunal's award of reinstatement with back wages was proper.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the Industrial Tribunal's award of reinstatement with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice to the date of award. The court found no error in the tribunal's finding that the employer failed to prove wilful suppression and that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate.
Law Points
- Suppression of material facts in attestation form
- wilful suppression
- burden of proof on employer
- proportionality of punishment
- Section 12 of Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act
- 1887
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
