C. RAMESHAN v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam & The Managing Director State Bank of Travancore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/10TH KARTHIKA, 1938 WA.No. 2469 of 2015 IN WP(C).3894/2010 ------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3894/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06-10-2015 ------- ## APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- C.RAMESHAN LEELA NIVAS, NEAR NES BLOCK, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013. ## BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KARSHAKA ROAD, KOCHI-682014. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695012. ## R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **ANTONY DOMINIC & SHIRCY V., JJ.** -----------------------------------------------W. A. No.2469 of 2015 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of November, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Antony Dominic, J.** 1. aThe workman in I.D.12 of 2005 on the file of the first respondent is the appellant. The workman was an employee of the second respondent management. Based on the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated, the workman was ultimately dismissed from service. This gave rise to a dispute which was ultimately referred for adjudication by the first respondent and it is that dispute which came to be registered as I.D.12 of 2005. 2. In Ext.P1 award, the first respondent held that the enquiry conducted by the management was in violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly, the findings of the enquiry officer were set aside. Thereafter the management was given opportunity to justify its action by W. A. No.2469 of 2015 -2- adducing evidence. That opportunity was availed of and evidence was adduced. Thereafter, the Tribunal passed Ext.P1 award confirming the guilt of the workman in respect of some of the charges and ultimately modifying the order of dismissal into an order directing reinstatement in service with continuity of service and a punishment of withholding of increments was also imposed. It was challenging this award, the workman filed W.P.(C) No.3894 of 2010. 3. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge set aside the award on the basis that the award was rendered placing reliance on the proceedings of the enquiry officer which was already set aside by the Tribunal. The learned single Judge thereafter remitted the matter to the Industrial Tribunal with the following directions: “12. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that the finding of innocence on the remaining charges have also been arrived at by the 1[st] respondent relying on M1 records of the enquiry, earlier conducted. In the above circumstances, -3- W. A. No.2469 of 2015 I am of the considered opinion that the reliance on M1 having vitiated the findings of the 1[st] respondent, the parties are to be given a further chance to prove the sustainability of the charges framed. In view of the long pendency of the matter, such procedure is to be expedited by the 1[st] respondent, award is to be rendered on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before it. 13. In the circumstances, Ext.P1 cannot be sustained. The same is set aide and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration as regards the guilt or innocence of the petitioner on the charges framed against him in accordance with law.” It is this judgment which is challenged before us. 4. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 5. Although the contention of the appellant is that having regard to the fact that since the finding of the -4- W. A. No.2469 of 2015 enquiry officer have already been set aside and in the absence of the management proving any of the charges, the workman is entitled to be exonerated of the charges and that therefore, the learned single Judge should not have remitted the case for fresh consideration, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel. As we have already seen following the order of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue relating to the validity of the domestic enquiry, the first respondent gave opportunity to the management to justify its action by adducing evidence before it. It was accordingly that evidence was adduced. Law is settled that once enquiry is held to be vitiated, Industrial Tribunal cannot rely on the proceedings relating to the enquiry. However, insofar as this case is concerned, the award was rendered placing reliance mainly on the proceedings of the enquiry officer. In such a situation, when the award is set -5- W. A. No.2469 of 2015 aside, this Court should naturally remit the matter to the Industrial Tribunal requiring it to pass a fresh award with reference to the material on record and in the light of the law as declared by the Apex Court in its judgment in **Neeta** **Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another [(1999) 1 SCC 517]** . 6. However, we find from the judgment under appeal that the learned single Judge has also allowed the parties opportunity to adduce fresh evidence in the matter. Having regard to the fact that the parties have already availed of the opportunity before the first respondent itself, such further opportunity is not only unnecessary, but also will result in delaying the matter. In such circumstances, it was not necessary for the learned single Judge to have given liberty to both sides to adduce fresh evidence again. 7. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal, directing the -6- W. A. No.2469 of 2015 first respondent to pass a fresh award as directed in the judgment under appeal, with reference to the material on record, and with reference to the law as declared by the Apex Court in the judgment in **Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another** (supra). Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **JUDGE** **ANTONY DOMINIC** Sd/- **SHIRCY V. JUDGE** kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE W. A. No.2469 of 2015 -7-