Management of Central Bank of India vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal

The appeal suffers from delay of 121 days. For condonation thereof an application (I.A. No. 3951 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay, we are of the view that letters patent appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is pertinent to notice that the domestic enquiry held against the workmen was not found fair and, accordingly, the liberty was given to the management (appellant herein) to prove the charges against the workman before the tribunal. The management let in evidence, documentary as well as oral. The evidence was also let in by the workman in rebuttal.

The tribunal considered the evidence thus:

"On careful analysis of the evidence before us what precisely precipitates is that workers Kamlesh Kumar and Mahesh Prasad Gupta both were selected for appointment as sub-staff in the bank subject to their compliance of certain conditions enumerated therefore. One of the conditions was that of filing School Leaving Certificate and other educational documents with their signature etc. thereon. These documents were to be kept in bank''s file. The workers were subsequently placed in service by the bank. Some time later, the management allegedly learned that their School Leaving Certificate i.e. SLCs, were fake and forged documents, on the basis of which they succeeded in securing appointment, and so, charge-sheets were issued to them. After domestic enquiry, the management gave a guilty verdict followed by their dismissal from service. It is thus crystal clear that filing of forged and fake SLCs, has been the only allegation against the workers. The document although very much in custody of the Bank was never produced at any stage of the proceeding, whether during enquiry or before this tribunal. Rather, the bank concentrated itself in a wrong direction in making all futile efforts to show that Transfer Certificate i.e. T.Cs. filed by the workers were not genuine documents. Here also the Bank could not establish the guilt as the records do not have workers'' signature etc., which should be there in view of specifically noted conditions in this respect in the appointment letter. It clearly indicates that the bank has mala fidely withheld original documents which were submitted by the workers at the time of appointment. So, in any view of the matter, the charge of seeking appointment on the basis of fake S.L.Cs. has not been at all proved against any of these two workers. An adverse finding and guilty verdict in context with said charge cannot be termed as proper and just in absence of key-document i.e., SLC. And accordingly, no punishment based on a misdirected finding would sustain under law since being non-judicious and against all legal principles."

The consideration of the evidence by the tribunal does not seem to suffer from any error of law. The tribunal has appreciated the evidence let in before it in right perspective. The Single Judge found no justification to interfere with the findings recorded by the tribunal. We also have no justifiable reason to take a different view.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. This disposes of I.A. No. 3951 of 2008.