R.B.Misra - (1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.7.1974 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. l and the award dated 31.8.1998 published on 27.10.1998 made by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and further prayer has also been made for commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back-wages and all consequential benefits.
(2.) HEARD Sri P. N. Saxena, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondent Bank. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that during Holi festival in March, 1970, the petitioner had some altercation with his neighbour at Kanpur, namely, Shri Beni Prasad, who later on filed a criminal complaint and petitioner was convicted for six months rigorous imprisonment by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 325, I.P.C. and the conviction was confirmed on 11.8.1973 by the Sessions Judge in appeal, however, in June, 1970, the petitioner was appointed as Chaukidar in the respondent bank on temporary basis and was confirmed on 1.6.1972. While posted at Fatehpur branch of the said bank, the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground of his involvement in the offence under Section 325, I.P.C. and in view of conviction by the criminal court and in the light of the provisions of Chapter XIX of 1 Bipartite Settlement of October, 1966, as well as under Section 10 of Banking Regulations Act after making payment of three months' salary. According to the petitioner, the offence under Section 325, I.P.C. cannot be termed as moral turpitude, which exposes an employee to terminate in view of para 19 (2) of the said settlement. An enquiry was conducted in respect of the matter and incidence of March, 1970 by the enquiry officer, but before its conclusion the petitioner was confirmed on Ist June, 1972. The petitioner challenged the said termination by filing a Writ Petition No. 6582 of 1974, which was dismissed on 8.2.1977 on the ground of alternative remedy with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy. The respondent No. l did not refer the said matter for adjudication to the Tribunal, in that respect the Writ Petition No. 10312 of 1987 was allowed by this Court with direction to the Government of India to make a reference before Tribunal, which passed an award dated 31.8.1998 holding that the Management was justified in dismissing the petitioner from service in exercise of power under paragraphs 19.2 and 19.3 of the Bipartite Settlement, according to which when in an award staff is convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude such workman can be dismissed from the service without holding any inquiry. It will be appropriate to refer Clauses 19.2 and 19.3 of the First Bipartite Settlement under which orders were passed suspending the respondent. These clauses read as follows : "19.2. By the expression "offence" shall be meant any offence involving moral turpitude for which an employee is liable to conviction and sentence under any provision of law. 19.3. (a) When in the opinion of the management an employee has committed an offence, unless he be otherwise prosecuted, the bank may take steps to prosecute him or get him prosecuted and in such a case he may also be suspended. (b) If he is convicted, he may be dismissed with effect from the date of his conviction or be given any lesser form of punishment as mentioned in Clause 19.6 below."
(3.) IT is evident from the bare perusal of the aforesaid clauses that if in the opinion of the management, an employee has committed an offence, then the bank may take steps to prosecute him and in such a case, he may also be suspended. The word "offence" occurring in Clause 19.3 (a) has been defined in Clause 19.2 to mean any offence involving "moral turpitude" for which an employee is liable to conviction and sentence under any provision of law. Section 10 (1) of Banking Regulation Act given as below : "10. Reference of Dispute to Boards, Courts or Tribunals-Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at anytime, by order in writing : (a) refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof ; or (b) refer any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry ; or (c) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule, to a labour court of adjudication ; or (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule to a Tribunal for adjudication : Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a labour court under Clause (c) : "Provided further that where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do make a reference under this sub-section notwithstanding any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced". ;