Ashok Kumar K vs Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner And Ors

The petitioner, who is working as a "Single Window Operator" in the second respondent - Canara Bank, has approached this Court seeking two reliefs: (a) that his statutory appeal preferred under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (PP and R) Act, 2013, namely Ext.P7, be directed to be disposed of at the earliest by the first respondent - Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner; and (b) that the disciplinary action initiated by the second respondent - Bank against him on the same set of allegations, which is the subject matter in Ext.P7, be directed to be deferred.

Sri.B.Ashok Shenoy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the genesis of the proceedings against him is in that the third respondent had preferred Ext.P8 complaint before the General Manager of the Canara Bank alleging that he had sexually harassed her; and that this was referred by the Bank to its Internal Enquiry Committee, which has found certain facts erroneously against him. Sri.B.Ashok Shenoy submitted that his client has, therefore, preferred Ext.P7 statutory appeal before the first respondent; but that in the meanwhile, the Bank has now initiated disciplinary action against him on the same set of allegations. Sri.B.Ashok Shenoy, therefore, prays that Ext.P7 be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the first respondent within a time frame and the Bank be directed not to proceed with disciplinary action against his client until such time as a decision is taken thereon by the said respondent.

Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent, submitted that Ext.P7 appeal is next listed to 13.01.2021 and that the said respondent will be in a position to dispose of the same within a period of one month thereafter, if both the parties co-operate. Sri.Vijayakumar then added that, in fact, the first respondent has also instructed the Bank not to continue with the disciplinary action against the petitioner until such time as a decision is taken by him on Ext.P7. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be ordered, allowing the first respondent to complete the proceedings on Ext.P7 as per law.

Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned standing counsel for the second respondent, submitted that the contentions of the petitioner impelled in this writ petition are not tenable because there is absolutely no bar - statutorily or otherwise - against the Bank initiating or proceeding with disciplinary action against him on the same set of allegations which are the subject matter of Ext.P7 statutory appeal. He submitted that the Bank has only acted bona fide and in fairness and on the basis of the complaint preferred by the third respondent and therefore, that this Court may not interdict the disciplinary action, as prayed for by the petitioner.

I have considered the afore submissions and have also gone through the materials and documents available on record.

It is indubitable, going by Ext.P2 report of the Internal Complaints Committee of the Bank, that the allegations against the petitioner are squarely based on the complaint preferred by the third respondent, which is available as Ext.P8 on record. It is also without doubt that the Bank is now proceeding against the petitioner, through a disciplinary enquiry, on the same set of imputations .

Obviously, therefore, when the statutory appeal against Ext.P2 is pending before the first respondent, I am of the firm view that the disciplinary action of the Bank cannot be allowed to continue, particularly when the result of the said statutory appeal will certainly have the bearing on the enquiry now proposed by the Bank.

That apart, as submitted by Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General, it is also the firm opinion of the first respondent that such disciplinary action be deferred until such time as he takes a final decision on Ext.P7 statutory appeal.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the first respondent - Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, to dispose of Ext.P7 appeal, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to both sides, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than 15.02.2021.

Needless to say, until such time as the final orders are issued by the first respondent on Ext.P7 and communicated to the parties, all further action now proposed by the Bank against the petitioner through Ext.P4 will be deferred; however, clarifying that they will be at liberty to continue further proceedings thereon, if it is so found necessary thereafter.

After I dictated this judgment, Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General, prayed that the petitioner and the third respondent be directed to co-operate fully during the consideration of the appeal by the first respondent. It is unnecessary to say that the parties must do so and if they still refuse full co-operation, the first respondent will certainly be at liberty to complete the consideration of the statutory appeal in terms of law, taking note of such circumstances.