2021 INSC 0581
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).   6092      OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 5931 of 2015)
   
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK      ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
R.C. SRIVASTAVA               ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The   instant   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   and
order   dated   21 st
  November,   2014   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Judicature   at   Allahabad   upholding   the   reinstatement   with   full
back wages awarded by the Tribunal dated 14 th
 September, 2006.
3. The facts in brief which are relevant for the purpose are that
the respondent­workman was an employee of the appellant­Bank
1

and for the alleged delinquency which he had committed on 12 th
January,   1988   in   discharge   of   his   duties,   a   charge­sheet   dated
27 th
  January,   1988   was   served   upon   the   respondent­workman
with   the   allegation   of   drunkenness   within   the   premises   of   the
appellant­Bank   and   for   manhandling   and   assaulting   the   senior
officers and also hurling abuses at the management. The relevant
portion   of   the   charge­sheet   dated   27 th
  January,   1988   reads   as
under:­
“You are aware that the hearing in the court case No.5887/83 was
fixed for 13.1.88 in which you are also a party. On 12.1.88 during
office hours Mr. Bachchoo Lal Mishra and Mr. P.K. Seth, officer of
the bank tomorrow there is a court case so do not mark me late as
I will go the court direct from my house. Mr. Seth told you and Mr.
Mishra that you should first come to the Bank, sign the attendance
register and only thereafter you should go to court. In the evening
again at about 5.30 PM you alongwith Mr. B.L. Mishra approached
Mr. Seth and told him not to mark Mr. B.L. Mishra late on 13.1.88
and that he would go to the court straight from his house without
first  reporting  to the bank. Mr. Seth asked you and Mr. Mishra  to
first come to the bank, sign the attendance register and then go to
the court. You and Mr. Mishra  then asked Mr. Seth to talk to Mr.
Sikka, Assistant Manager (Operation) who in turn advised Mr. Seth
to   write   court   case   in   the   attendance   register   which   fact   was
advised to you as also to Mr. Mishra.
On the same day i.e. 12.1.88, Mr. Seth alongwith Mr. Arun Sharma
were   in   the   office   at   about   9.00   PM   and   were   going   to   close   the
branch  when you  alongwith  Mr. B.L.  Mishra, Mr. Than Singh  and
an   outsider   entered   the   bank   hall   in   a   drunken   state   and   started
discussing   the   issue   regarding   marking   late   in   the   attendance
register.     Mr.   A.   Sharma   tried   to   pacify   you   and   the   others   by
pointing out that such requirements are normal norms of the office
and   that   the   officers   were   carrying   out   the   instructions   on   the
senior   officers   and   that   such   requirements   are   only   as   per   office
rules.     It   is   reported   that   both   Mr.   Mishra   and   Mr.   Than   Singh
abused the Management/Officers as you were looking on Mr. Than
Singh said: “Ek Ek ko dekh lenge, Maa chod dunga, Ek ek ki tang
tod denge.”
2

Mr.   Misra   abused   thus:   ‘Maa   chod   dunga.   Ek   Ek   ki   maa   chod
dunga.’ With persuasion of Mr. Arun Sharma and Mr. Seth, officers
of   the   bank,   you   alongwith   the   others   went   out   of   the   bank   hall
and   stood   in   the   bank’s   compound   as  Mr.   Sharma,   locked   up   the
premises.   Again   both   Mr.   Misra   and   Mr.   Than   Singh   started
abusing   Mr.   Seth   and   the   Management   in   logon   ke   maa   chod
denge.   Salon   ke   tange   tod   denge.     In   the   meantime   Mr.   Sharma
went   to   the   residence   of   Mr.   Sikka   in   the   bank   compound   to
deposit   the   bank’s   keys.   The   moment   Mr.   Sharma   went   out   you
alongwith   the   outsider   pulled   Mr.   Seth’s   tie   from   his   neck   and
manhandled   and   slapped   him   resulting   in   his   spectacles   being
broken and he also got a bruise on his left eye.
The   above   said   acts   on   your   part   if   proved   will   constitute   the
following   gross   misconduct   under   paragraph   19.5   of   the   Bipartite
Settlement dated 19.10.66, which reads as under:
19.5   (c):   Drunkenness   or   riotous   or   disorderly   or   indecent
behaviour on the premises of the bank and
(d)   Doing   any   act   prejudicial   to   the   interest   of   the   bank,   and   you
are hereby charged with the above gross acts of misconduct.”
4. For   the   alleged   gross   misconduct   which   he   had   committed
in discharge of his duties, a departmental enquiry was held and
in the course of enquiry, the evidence of three witnesses namely,
Mr.   P.K.   Seth   (MW­1),   Mr.   B.M.   Sikka   (MW­2)   and   Mr.   Arun
Sharma (MW­3), who are the officers and with whom the alleged
incident had occurred were produced by the management and in
defence,   the   respondent­workman   had   not   appeared   in   the
witness   box   but   two   employees   namely,   Mr.   Shyam   Bahadur
(DW­1)­Watchman and  Mr. Panna Lal (DW­2)­ an ex­employee of
the Bank, were produced. 
3

5. The   enquiry   officer   after   holding   enquiry   in   terms   of   the
Bipartite Settlement and after due compliance of the principles of
natural   justice   held   the   charges   proved   against   the   delinquent
respondent   and   the   disciplinary   authority   after   due   compliance,
confirmed   the   finding   recorded   by   the   enquiry   officer   and
punished   him   with   the   penalty   of   dismissal   from   service   by   an
order dated 22 nd
 August, 1991. 
6. The   reference   made   by   the   appropriate   Government   by   its
notification   dated   30 th
  June,   1992   for   adjudication   to   the
Tribunal reads as under:­
“Whether the action of the management of ANZ Grindlays Bank Plc,
Kanpur   in   dismissing   Sri   R.C.   Srivastava   from   service   with   effect
from 22 August 1991 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled to?”
7. The Tribunal in the first instance after examining the record
of   enquiry   held   the   domestic   enquiry   to   be   fair   and   proper   and
thereafter,   revisited   the   record   of   enquiry   and   apprised   the
statement   of   the   management   witnesses   namely,   Mr.   P.K.   Seth
(MW­1),   Mr.   B.M.   Sikka   (MW­2)   and   Mr.   Arun   Sharma   (MW­3)
and defence witnesses namely, the Watchman (DW­1) and the ex­
employee   of   the   Bank   (DW­2)   and   recorded   a   finding   that   the
management   of   the   appellant­Bank   has   miserably   failed   to
4

establish   the   charges   levelled   against   the   respondent­workman
and   held   the   charges   not   being   proved   and   in   consequence,   set
aside   the   order   of   dismissal   from   service   and   directed   the
appellant   to   reinstate   the   respondent­workman   in   service   with
full   back   wages,   seniority   and   all   the   consequential   benefits
attached to the post by its Award dated 14 th
 September, 2006.
8. The   award   dated   14 th
  September,   2006   came   to   be
challenged by the appellant in a writ petition under  Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution and the High Court by its impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   21 st
  November,   2014   dismissed   the
writ petition. 
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the
domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper, the Tribunal has
a   limited   scope   to   interfere   with   the   findings   recorded   in   the
domestic   enquiry   and   unless   the   finding   is   perverse   and   not
supported by a piece of evidence, it was not open for the tribunal
to   interfere   within   the   scope   of   Section   11­A   of   the   Industrial
Disputes   Act,   1947(hereinafter   being   referred   to   as   the   “Act
1947”). 
5

10. However,   in   the   instant   case,   the   Tribunal   converted   itself
into a Court of Appeal and has not only revisited the evidence in
toto but has proceeded on the assumption that the management
has   to   prove   the   charges   beyond   reasonable   doubt   and   despite
the   material   evidence   of   three   officers,   who   were   abused   by
respondent­workman   in   drunkenness   condition,   have   been
completely   disowned on  the premise that one Watchman  (DW­1)
and   an   ex­employee   of   the   Bank(DW­2)   have   stated   in   their
deposition that such incident has not occurred and to justify it, a
document was placed on record i.e. the attendance register of the
time in question and to confront it further with the fact that the
delinquent had not appeared in the  domestic enquiry  and  still a
finding   has   been   recorded   by   the   Tribunal   that   such   incidence
has not occurred is something which has appeared from blue and
without   there   being   any   iota   of   the   factual   foundation,   the
interference made by the tribunal in the finding of guilt recorded
in the course of enquiry is not only perverse but is unsustainable
in law. 
11. The   scope   of   judicial   review   in   the   matter   of   domestic
enquiry is to examine whether the procedure in holding domestic
enquiry has been violated or the principles of natural justice has
6

been   complied   with,   or   any   perversity   in   the   finding   of   guilt
recorded   during   the   course   of   domestic   enquiry   has   been
committed. The basic error which was committed by the Tribunal
in   its   impugned   Award   has   not   been   appreciated   even   by   the
High  Court  and  dismissed  the  writ  petition  without   appreciating
the   finding   recorded   in   the   domestic   enquiry   keeping   into
consideration   the   principles   laid   down   by   this   Court   of
preponderance of probabilities while holding guilt in the domestic
enquiry   and   exceeded   in   its   jurisdiction   defined   under   Section
11­A of the Act 1947.  To the contrary, the officers with whom the
alleged occurrence of gross misconduct has been committed have
been   put   to   notice   that   their   allegation   on   the   face   of   it   is
unfounded,   baseless   and   has   not   at   all   occurred   which   is
something beyond imagination. More so, when it was established
during   the   course   of   enquiry   after   affording   an   opportunity   of
hearing   to   the   delinquent   respondent,   enquiry   officer   held   the
charges   proved   and   confirmed   by   the   disciplinary   authority
followed with the penalty of dismissal upon the respondent. 
12. It   is   informed   to   this   Court   that   the   respondent­workman
had   attained   the   age   of   superannuation   on   31 st
  January,   2012
7

and during the period of litigation, he has throughout been paid
his last wages drawn in terms of Section 17­B of the Act 1947. 
13. Per   contra,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   while
supporting   the   findings   recorded   by   the   Tribunal   and   confirmed
by the High Court in the impugned judgment submits that there
was no evidence on record as appreciated by the Tribunal in the
first   place,   in   arriving   to   the   conclusion   that   such   alleged
incident   in   reference   to   which   domestic   enquiry   was   held   had
never occurred and the action was taken against him because he
was   an   active   member   of   a   union   and   this   was   the   circuitous
route   adopted   by   the   appellant   to   eliminate   the   respondent   to
curb his trade union activities in the bank and the only recourse
available   was   to   make   such   uncalled   for   baseless   allegations
which certainly  on being  tested on the floor of judicial review by
the   Tribunal   do   not   hold   good   and   rightly   interfered   by   the
Tribunal and has been confirmed by the High Court. 
14. We have considered the submissions of the parties and with
their assistance examined the material available on record. 
15. This   Court   while   issuing   notice   on   27 th
  February,   2015
stayed   the   payment   of   back   wages   obviously   for   the   reason   by
8

that   time   the   respondent­workman   had   attained   the   age   of
superannuation on 31 st
 January, 2012. 
16. It   is   not   the   case   of   the   respondent   that   the   domestic
enquiry   has   not   been   conducted   as   per   the   Bipartite   Settlement
dated   19 th
  October,   1966,   which   was   applicable   for   holding
domestic   enquiry   in   reference   to   misconduct   committed   by   a
workman   and   the  alleged  misconduct   for  which   the  respondent­
workman   was   chargesheeted   has   been   defined   as   one   of   the
misconduct   under   Clause   19.5   (c)   and   (d)   of   the   Bipartite
Settlement.   The   acts   which   constitute   the   gross   misconduct
under   paragraph   19.5   of   the   Bipartite   Settlement   dated   19 th
October, 1966 reads as under:­
“19.5   (c):   Drunkeness   or   riotous   or   disorderly   or   indecent
behaviour on the premises of the bank and
(d) Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank, and you
are hereby charged with the above gross acts of misconduct.”
17. After the charge sheet dated 27 th
 January, 1988 was served,
of   which   a   detail   reference   has   been   made   in   the   course   of
enquiry,   the   officers   of   the   Bank   namely,   Mr.   P.K.   Seth   (MW­1),
Mr. B.M. Sikka (MW­2) and Mr. Arun Sharma (MW­3) with whom
the   alleged   misconduct   was   committed   by   the   respondent­
workman   had   appeared   as   a   witness   on   behalf   of   the
9

management   in   support   of   allegation   levelled   against   the
respondent­workman in the charge sheet and for the reason best
known,   the   respondent   had   not   recorded   his   own   statement   in
defence in the course of enquiry but produced (DW­1)­Watchman
and   (DW­2)   –   an   ex­employee   of   the   Bank   who   confronted   the
statement   of   the   witnesses   of   the   management   with   whom   the
alleged   incident   occurred,   based   on   the   ocular   evidence   and
obviously, there cannot be any documentary evidence to support
with   the   kind   of   allegation   of   misconduct   levelled   against   the
respondent­workman,   the   enquiry   officer   after   affording
opportunity   of   hearing   and   due   compliance   of   principles   of
natural   justice   recorded   the   finding   of   charge   being   proved   and
confirmed   by   the   disciplinary   authority   and   in   consequence
thereof,   he   was   punished   with   the   penalty   of   dismissal   from
service with effect from 22 nd
 August, 1991.  The Tribunal after re­
appraisal of the record of domestic enquiry held it to be fair and
proper,   has   a   very   limited   scope   to   interfere   in   the   domestic
enquiry   to   the   extent   as   to   whether   there   is   any   apparent
perversity   in   the   finding   of   fact   which   has   been   recorded   by   the
enquiry   officer   in   his   report   of   enquiry   obviously,   based   on   the
evidence recorded during the course of enquiry and as to whether
10

the   compliance   of   the   Bipartite   Settlement   which   provides   the
procedure   of   holding   enquiry   is   violated   or   the   punishment
levelled   against   the   workman   commensurate   with   the   nature   of
allegation proved against him and if it is grossly disproportionate,
the   tribunal   will   always   be   justified   to   interfere   by   invoking   its
statutory power under Section 11­A of the Act 1947.
18. In the instant case, after  we have gone through the record,
we   find   that   the   Tribunal   has   converted   itself   into   a   Court   of
Appeal   as   an   appellate   authority   and   has   exceeded   its
jurisdiction while appreciating the finding recorded in the course
of domestic enquiry and tested on the broad principles of charge
to   be   proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt   which   is   a   test   in   the
criminal justice system and has completely forgotten the fact that
the   domestic   enquiry   is   to   be   tested   on   the   principles   of
preponderance   of   probabilities   and   if   a   piece   of   evidence   is   on
record   which   could   support   the   charge   which   has   been   levelled
against   the   delinquent   unless   it   is   per   se   unsustainable   or
perverse, ordinarily is not to be interfered by  the Tribunal, more
so when the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and proper
and,   in   our   view,   the   Tribunal   has   completely   overlooked   and
exceeded   its   jurisdiction   while   interfering   with   the   finding
11

recorded   during   the   course   of   enquiry   in   furtherance   of   which,
the   respondent   was   dismissed   from   service   and   the   High   Court
has also committed a manifest error while passing the judgment
impugned. 
19. The   decision   of   the   Labour   Court   should   not   be   based   on
mere   hypothesis.   It   cannot   overturn   the   decision   of   the
management on   ipse   dixit . Its jurisdiction under   Section  11­A of
the   Act   1947   although   is   a   wide   one   but   it   must   be   judiciously
exercised.   Judicial   discretion,   it   is   trite,   cannot   be   exercised
either   whimsically   or   capriciously.   It   may   scrutinize   or   analyse
the evidence but what is important is how it does so.
20. We are of the considered view that the Award passed by the
Tribunal   and   confirmed   by   the   High   Court   under   impugned
judgment is not sustainable in law.
21. On the last date of hearing before this Court, we have called
upon   the   appellant   to   place   for   our   perusal   the   payment   which
has been made to the respondent­workman. 
22. In compliance thereof, the statement has been placed before
us   for   perusal,   indicates   that   a   sum   of   Rs.46,89,421.16   plus
amount   towards   Section   17­B   of   the   Act   1947,   i.e.
12

Rs.10,27,096.56,   in   total   Rs.57,16,517.72   has   been   paid   to   the
respondent­workman in the interregnum period. 
23. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   in   his   submission   has
tried   to   persuade   this   Court   that   a   poor   workman   has   been
targeted by the appellant and throughout his life, he had been in
the   litigation   and   what   has   been   paid   to   him   is   his   legitimate
dues and interference, if made, may cause prejudice to him.
24. In the given facts and circumstances, looking to the peculiar
facts of this case where the respondent­workman had been paid
Rs.57,16,517.72 and had attained the age of superannuation on
31 st
  January,   2012,   stay   was   granted   by   this   Court   in   reference
to back wages by order 27 th
  February, 2015, while upholding the
order   of   penalty   of   dismissal   from   service   dated   22 nd
  August,
1991   passed   by   the   authority   in   the   domestic   enquiry,   we
consider it appropriate to observe that no recovery shall be made
in   reference   to   the   payment   which   has   been   made   over   to   the
workman   in   the   interregnum   period,   of   which   a   reference   has
been made by us afore­stated.
25. The   appeal   succeeds   and   is   accordingly   allowed   and   the
judgment of the High Court dated 21 st
  November, 2014 affirming
13

the Award dated 14 th
  September, 2006 passed by the Tribunal is
set aside with the clarification that there shall be no recovery in
reference   to   the   payment   which   has   been   made   over   to   the
respondent­workman in the interregnum period.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
…………………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
……………………………..J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
14