Supreme Court of India
ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS. versus KRISHAN PAL SINGH on 20 September 2021
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
ALLAHABAD BANK & ORS.
A
v.
KRISHAN PAL SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 5808 of 2021)
BSEPTEMBER 20, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Service Law – Dismissal – Monetary compensation in lieuof reinstatement – Respondent was Clerk-cum-Cashier in appellant-Bank – Burning incident of Bank records – Suspecting complicityCof respondent, he was placed under suspension and disciplinaryproceedings initiated against him – On completion of enquiry,respondent was dismissed from service – He raised industrialdispute – Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour Court held thatmisconduct alleged against respondent was not proved, but a casewas made out by the management of loss of confidence, andDaccordingly ordered payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- in lieuof reinstatement – Respondent filed Writ Petition – High Courtordered reinstatement of respondent with all consequential benefits– On appeal, held: Though, there was strong suspicion, there wasno acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of respondent –EReinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case,where termination / dismissal is found to be not in accordance withprocedure prescribed under law – Considering that respondent wasin effective service of the Bank only for about six years and he isout of service since 1991, and in the meantime, respondent hadattained age of superannuation, ends of justice would be met byFawarding him lump sum monetary compensation of Rs.15 lakhs –Labour Laws.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The directions issued by the High Court forreinstatement were stayed by this Court. During the pendencyGof these proceedings, the respondent – workman had attainedage of superannuation. Though, there was strong suspicion,there was no acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of theworkman. However, as the workman has worked only for aperiod of about six years and he has already attained the age ofHsuperannuation, it is a fit case for modification of the relief granted by the High Court. The reinstatement with full backwages is not automatic in every case, where termination /dismissal is found to be not in accordance with procedureprescribed under law. Considering that the respondent was ineffective service of the Bank only for about six years and he isout of service since 1991, and in the meantime, respondent hadattained age of superannuation, it is appropriate that ends ofjustice would be met by awarding lump sum monetarycompensation. Accordingly, it is directed that payment of lumpsum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs be made to the respondent,within a period of eight weeks. Failing to pay the same withinthe aforesaid period, the respondent is entitled for interest @6% per annum, till payment. [Para 8][207-D-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5808of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2019 of the HighCourt of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition (S/S) No.692 of1998.
Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Nipun Sharma, MadhurTewatia, Ravi Solanki, Advs. for the Appellants.
Rakesh Taneja, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
2
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant – Bank, aggrievedby the Order dated 25.04.2019 of the High Court of Allahabad,Lucknow Bench, passed in Service Single No. 692 of 1998. By theaforesaid order, the High Court has quashed the award dated 07.10.1997,passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal–cum–LabourCourt so far as it relates to refusal of reinstatement of the respondentwith back wages and issued directions, directing the appellants toreinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits.
3. The sole respondent herein was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the appellant – Allahabad Bank on 23.09.1985 and his servicewas confirmed on 24.03.1986. During the year 1989, he was posted inAurangabad Branch, District Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. On08.02.1989, there was fire accident in the Bank and an FIR was AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aregistered with regard to burning incident of Bank records by unknownpersons. Suspecting the complicity of the respondent, he was placedunder suspension by order dated 13.02.1989 and disciplinary proceedingswere initiated against him. Ultimately, on completion of enquiry, therespondent was dismissed from service vide Order dated 22.08.1991.The departmental appeal, preferred by him was rejected by AppellateBAuthority on 27.02.1992 and further, Mercy Appeal was also rejectedvide Order dated 27.05.1992.
4. The respondent raised the industrial dispute and the same wasreferred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal–cum–LabourCourt, Kanpur in Industrial Dispute No. 98 of 1994. The IndustrialCTribunal–cum–Labour Court has passed the Award dated 07.10.1997and held that misconduct alleged against the respondent is not proved,but on the ground that a case is made out by the management of lossof confidence, has ordered payment of compensation of Rs.30,000/- inlieu of reinstatement. The respondent – workman, aggrieved by theaward of the Industrial Tribunal–cum–Labour Court, seekingDreinstatement with back wages, carried the matter to the High Courtby way of Writ Petition in Service Single No. 692 of 1998. The HighCourt, by impugned Order dated 25.04.2019, has ordered reinstatementof the respondent with all consequential benefits. The said Order issubject matter of challenge in this Appeal. While issuing notice, videEOrder dated 23.08.2019, this Court granted interim relief against thedirection of reinstatement with back wages, ordered by the High Court.
5. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel appearingfor the appellant – Bank and Mr. Rakesh Taneja, learned counselappearing for the respondent.F6. Order of dismissal was passed by the Bank, alleginginvolvement of the respondent in the incident relating to burning ofrelevant Bank records. One Mr. Balak Ram was prime accused in theaforesaid incident, and the respondent being a friend of said Mr. BalakRam, was suspected on the ground that one of the witnesses namelyMr. Ram Singh, MW-1, examined in the disciplinary proceedings, hasGdeposed that Mr. Balak Ram and others assembled together on the dateof incident. The Industrial Tribunal has found that though there was astrong suspicion, but there was no sufficient evidence to prove hismisconduct to dismiss from service. The Industrial Tribunal has foundthat the Bank has lost confidence on the respondent and orderedpayment of monetary compensation of Rs.30,000/- in lieu ofHreinstatement. When the said award was challenged before the High Court, it has found that suspicion, however, high may be, can under nocircumstances be held a substitute to legal proof. By further recordinga finding that the appellants have not challenged the award passed bythe Industrial Tribunal, has allowed the Writ Petition by directingreinstatement with all consequential benefits.
7. In this case, it is to be noted that the respondent was appointedin the Bank as Clerk–cum– Cashier on 23.09.1985 and he was placedunder suspension on 13.02.1989 and dismissed from service vide Orderdated 22.08.1991. Including the suspension period, he was in Bankservice for about six years before dismissal. Thereafter, he wasunsuccessful before the departmental Appellate Authority and theIndustrial Tribunal ordered payment of lump sum monetarycompensation of Rs.30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement.
8. The directions issued by the High Court of Allahabad forreinstatement were stayed by this Court on 23.08.2019. During thependency of these proceedings, the respondent – workman had attainedage of superannuation. Though, there was strong suspicion, there wasno acceptable evidence on record for dismissal of the workman.However, as the workman has worked only for a period of about sixyears and he has already attained the age of superannuation, it is a fitcase for modification of the relief granted by the High Court. Thereinstatement with full back wages is not automatic in every case, wheretermination / dismissal is found to be not in accordance with procedureprescribed under law. Considering that the respondent was in effectiveservice of the Bank only for about six years and he is out of servicesince 1991, and in the meantime, respondent had attained age ofsuperannuation, we deem it appropriate that ends of justice would bemet by awarding lump sum monetary compensation. We accordinglydirect payment of lump sum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to therespondent, within a period of eight weeks from today. Failing to paythe same within the aforesaid period, the respondent is entitled forinterest @ 6% per annum, till payment.
9. This Civil Appeal is partly allowed. Order of the High Courtdated 25.04.2019 stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H