COURT NAME: The Supreme court of India
JUDGEMENT NAME: Allahabad Bank & Ors. vs. Krishan Pal Singh (C.A. No. 5808/2021 – D.No. 25097 / 2019 20-Sep-2021)
JUDGEMENT DATE: 20 September 2021
JUDGE/BENCH: R. SUBHASH REDDY,J
INTRODUCTION:
The statement was given by the supreme court that the back wages will be cancelled when an employee’s services were unlawfully terminated. In the case of Allahabad Bank and others vs. Krishan Pal Singh the bench comprising Justice R. Subhash Reddy relied on precedents laid by the supreme court, to hold that an employee whose services are found to have been unlawfully terminated, will be entitled to the back wages.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- The respondent was posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier in a branch of Allahabad Bank on 23.09.1985 and his service was confirmed on 24.03.1986.
- In the year 1989, he was transferred to Aurangabad Branch, Uttar Pradesh. On 08.02.1989, there was a fire accident in the Bank and an FIR was registered with a testimonial to a burning incident of Bank records by an outsider.
- Suspecting the collaboration of the respondent, he was put down under adjournment by order dated 13.02.1989 and disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him.
- Eventually, on completion of the inquiry, the respondent was disbanded from service vide Order dated 22.08.1991. The departmental appeal, favoured by him was declined by Appellate Authority on 27.02.1992 and further, compassion Appeal was also declined to vide Order dated 27.05.1992.
- The industrial dispute was lifted by the respondent and a copy was given to the Central Government Industrial tribunal-cum-labour Court, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 98 of 1994.
- The Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour Court has proceeded with the Award on 07.10.1997 and clenched that wrongdoing alleged against the respondent is not demonstrated, but on the ground that a case is made out by the management of drop of confidence, has ordered payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.
- The respondent (employee), resentful of the award of the Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour Court, looking for reinstatement with back wages, carried the matter to the High Court by way of Writ Petition in Service Single No. 692 of 1998.
CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT:
Mr Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel looking for the appellant.
The order of dismissal was gone by the Bank, alleging the involvement of the respondent in the incident concerning the burning of relevant Bank records. One Mr Balak Ram was primarily accused within the aforesaid event, and so the respondent being a friend of said Mr Balak Ram was suspected on the bottom that one among the observer namely Mr Ram Singh, MW-1, inspected within the disciplinary proceedings, has overthrow that Mr Balak Ram and others collect together on the date of the event.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT:
Mr Rakesh Taneja, learned counsel looking for the respondent. At the moment the said award was challenged before the High Court, it was found that intuition, although high it may be, can under no circumstances be held a replacement to legal proof. It was further found that the appellant was not challenged by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, which has permitted the Writ Petition by directing reinstatement with all consequential sake.
JUDGEMENT:
- The administration provided by the supreme court of Allahabad for Restoration was stayed by this Court on 23.08.2019. To give an award to the employee as compensation with money for unlawful termination, the clarification given by Supreme Court was as stated ‘Restoration with full back wages isn’t an automatic relief in every case of unlawful termination’.
- All things considered, the respondent was ineffective service of the Bank just for about six years, and he is out of service since 1991, and for the time being, the respondent had achieved the age of retirement, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice would be reached by awarding payment of monetary compensation.
- The Court appropriately directed payment of compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to the respondent, within a period of eight weeks. If failing to pay a comparable within the aforesaid period, the respondent is allowed interest @ 6% once a year, till payment.
IN MY OPINION:
- In my opinion, the court has given the right judgement. During the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent (employee) had attained the age of retirement. Though there was strong intuition, there was no admissible evidence on record for the dismissal of the employee.
- Although, as the employee has worked only for a period of about six years and he has already attained the age of retirement, it is a fit case for the moderation of the relief granted by the High Court.
- The Industrial tribunal found that there was a strong intuition, but there was no sufficient evidence to prove his misconduct to dismiss him from service.
REFERENCE:
- Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act)
- https://www.google.com/url?q=https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/25097/25097_2019_42_1501_30171_Judgement_20-Sep-2021.pdf&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1632494472077000&usg=AOvVaw1zF4lBjWlPV_Tc5SGWG-1B
Written By: Nazmin Shaikh, Children Welfare Centre Law College, Mumbai.