WORKMEN OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the award given by respondent No. 2 dated July 31, 1969, by which the Tribunal upheld the order of the management in suspending and later on dismissing the four employees of the bank.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy it will be necessary to mention a few main facts. Indian Overseas Bank (previously known as Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.), Janpath, New Delhi, respondent No. 1, had three branches at the time of the incident situated at Janpath, Chandni Chowk and Karol Bagh in 1966-67. J. K. Sehgal and M. B. Jain at the relevant time were employed In Janpath branch of the bank and J. P. Rohtagi and Raj Kumar were employed in Chandni Chowk branch of the bank. It is alleged In the petition that on 31st March, 1964, a settlement had been arrived at between the management of the bank and its workmen which provided that direct recruitment to officers' cadre would not exceed 50 per cent of the entire promotions made to the officers cadre from amongst the employees in the services of the bank in any calendar year. It is stated that in violation of this agreement, in May, 1965, the management of the bank posted one Shri A. T. Panirselvam as an officer in the Karol Bagh branch of the Workmen of Indian Overseas Bank vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Anr. (12. 11. 1970 - DE. . . Page 2 of 23 (12. 11. 1970 - DE. . . Page 2 of 23 bank to which the union protested. Dispute having been raised before the conciliation officer, it Is alleged that Shri A. f. Panirselvam was sent back to Madras after completing his training. Later on it is alleged one Shri K. R. Menon was appointed as an officer in Chandni Chowk branch in Delhi. It is alleged in the petition that the posting of Shri Menon was objected to by the union office bearers who went to discuss this matter with the officers posted in Chandni Chowk branch. It was also alleged that the bank instead of giving relief to the workmen chose to victimise the leaders of the union and issued letters to the four workmen mentioned above seeking their explanations. It is stated that subsequently these workmen were suspended and then ultimately dismissed. The bank denies that the matter of posting of Shri Menon was discussed by the union with the officers. Instead it is maintained by the bank that the four employees, namely, Sehgal, Jain, Rohtagi and Raj Kumar committed various acts of gross misconduct for which they were charge-sheeted. This will be a proper stage to refer now to the charge-sheets which were admittedly issued to the workmen and which ultimately led to their dismissal. One of the charge-sheets issued against Rohtagi and Raj Kumar alleged that they had entered the room of Shri G. V. Krishnamurthy, agent of the Chandni Chowk branch of the bank on 30th July, 1965 at 10-15 a. m. without his permission and without his sending for then and demanded that he should not allow Shri Menon who had been transferred by the head office to that branch, to work and should be sent back immediately. When Shri Krishnamurthy pointed out that the question concerning staff could not be discussed without Shri Rai, agent of the Janpath branch of the bank, the workmen are stated to have forced Shri Krishnamurthy to phone Shri Rai to come over there. They also without permission of Shri Krishnamurthy phoned and asked Jain and Sehgal of the Janpath branch of the bank to come over to Chandni Chowk by interrupting the discharge of their duties and the said act was prejudicial to the interest of the bank. It was further alleged that after the arrival of Sehgal and Jain Shri Krishnamurty was compelled to book a trunk call for the Assistant General Manager of the bank at Madras. It was then alleged that under duress Shri Krishnamurthy was forced to convey that message and thereafter the said workmen allowed the agent to leave the room. They were, therefore, charged for gross misconduct under para 521 (4) (c), (e), (j), (1) of the Sastry Award read with para 18. 28 of the Desai Award. It may be mentioned that it is a common case that the Sastry Award had laid down the Workmen of Indian Overseas Bank vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Anr. (12. 11. 1970 - DE. . . Page 3 of 23 (12. 11. 1970 - DE. . . Page 3 of 23 terms and conditions of the employees of the bank including that of the Indian Overseas Bank and the management and the workmen are bound by such an award.

(3.) THE second charge-sheet issued to Sehgal, Jain and Raj Kumar was that on July 30, 1965, they entered the room of the agent of Janpath branch of the bank at 10-10 a. m. and forced Shri Rai to disconnect the phone. Raj Kumar is also stated to have thrown the telephone directory most insultingly on the agent's table. Again, when the agent came to his room at 12-20 p, m. the said employees came to him at about 12-30 p. m. , forced open the door of the agent's room, called the staff and instigated them to repeat the slogans and abusive epithets. In this way the work of the bank was brought to a standstill which was prejudicial to the interest of the bank and thus they were charged under para, 521 (4) (c), (e), (j), (1) of Sastry Award read with para. 18. 28 of the Desai Award.