BHARAT COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. K L BARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenge the common judgment and order dated 20th November, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications Nos.6026/1996 and 7905/1996. The said writ petitions challenge the interim orders for payment of subsistence allowance to the respondents - workmen pending proceedings before the Labour Court in Termination Applications Nos.4/1996 and 14/1995. The appellant before this Court is Bharat Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") and the respondents are the workmen employed by the Bank. In an incident of misappropriation of the funds of the third party the service of a Peon and a Clerk in the Bank, the applicants in Termination Application No.4/1996, came to be terminated for loss of confidence without formal enquiry. In another incident of passing the cheques in excess of the overdraft limit of the customers the service of the Senior Clerk-cum-Accounts Officer-cum-Passing Officer came to be terminated for loss of confidence without formal enquiry. The said order of termination came to be challenged by the concerned workman in Termination Application No.14/1995.

(2.) Pending the aforesaid Termination Application No.4/1996 the workmen claimed payment of subsistence allowance till the allegation made against them was proved by leading evidence before the Court. The said claim came to be allowed by the learned Labour Judge by his order dated 10th June, 1996. The said order was confirmed in Revision by the Industrial Court by its order dated 6th August, 1996. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank preferred the above Special Civil Application No.6026/1996. A similar claim made by the workman in Termination Application No.14/1995 was rejected by the Labour Court but was accepted in Revision by order dated 7th August, 1996 made by the Industrial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank preferred the above Special Civil Application No.7905/1996. Both the writ petitions involved identical issue whether the delinquent workmen were entitled to receive subsistence allowance pending proceedings before the Labour Court till the imputation of charge made against them was proved by leading evidence before the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that, had the Bank held disciplinary proceeding the Bank would have been obliged to pay atleast the subsistence allowance pending disciplinary proceeding. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge the delinquent workmen would, therefore, be entitled to subsistence allowance in accordance with the Standing Orders till the imputation of charge made against them was proved by leading evidence before the Labour Court. Therefore, the present Appeals.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Patel has appeared for the Bank and has submitted that the learned Single Judge has manifestly erred in holding that delinquent workmen were entitled to receive subsistence allowance pending proceedings before the Court until the Bank proved the misconduct by leading evidence before the Court. He has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that opportunity to lead evidence before the Court to prove the act of misconduct is a concession given to the employer and is not a right conferred upon the employer. In the submission of Mr.Patel, both these propositions made by the learned Single Judge are contrary to the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the orders for payment of subsistence allowance made in favour of the workmen are erroneous and require to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, Mr.Patel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Engineering Laghu Udyog Employees' Union v/s. Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal,2004-I-LLJ 1105]; of R.Thiruvirkolam v/s. Presiding Officer and another [(1997)1 SCC 9]; of Punjab Dairy Development Corporation and another v/s. Kala Singh and others ,(1997)6 SCC 159]; of State of Punjab and others v/s. Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar ,AIR 1992 SC 111]; of (M/s.) Anup Engineering Ltd. v/s. Shreenarayan Kanaiyalal,1995(1) GLH 345]; of The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v/s. The Management and others [AIR 1973 SC 1227]; of The Cooper Engineering Ltd. v/s. P.P.Mundhe, AIR 1975 SC 1900]; and of Ram Lakhan v/s. Presiding Officer and others, AIR 2001 SC 286].