The Bombay High Court has held that where a workman raises a stale industrial dispute after an inordinate and unexplained delay, and such delay results in destruction or non-availability of the domestic enquiry record and inability of the employer to trace witnesses, the Industrial Tribunal cannot hold the Enquiry Officer’s findings to be perverse merely on account of such non-availability of record. In such a case, the claimant cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong, and the prejudice caused to the employer by delay and laches must be factored while adjudicating the dispute.
The Court also laid down that where the enquiry is otherwise held to be fair and proper, and the enquiry report demonstrates discussion of evidence, absence of the original enquiry proceedings before the Tribunal does not by itself establish perversity. Further, acquittal in a criminal prosecution on the same facts does not nullify the finding of guilt recorded in a parallel domestic enquiry, since the purpose and test in the two proceedings are entirely different.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that the Industrial Tribunal had branded the findings of the Enquiry Officer as perverse only because the Petitioner-Bank was unable to produce the entire evidence led in the domestic enquiry, and not on the basis of any scrutiny locating perversity in the findings themselves. The Bench noted that the enquiry had already been held to be fair and proper, that the Respondent had participated in it, and that the Enquiry Officer had returned findings after considering the evidence of 11 witnesses. In those circumstances, mere non-availability of the enquiry record before the Tribunal, after passage of many years, could not by itself justify a conclusion that the findings were perverse.
The Bench further observed that the Respondent did not challenge the dismissal for 13 long years, raised the demand for reinstatement only on August 10, 2013, and even after the Reference was made in 2014, filed his Statement of Claim four years later in 2018. The Bench held that the delay had grossly prejudiced the Petitioner-Bank, which was justified in destroying records after passage of time and could not be expected to preserve them for eternity in the absence of any challenge by the Respondent.
The Bench also observed that, when such a delayed claim is adjudicated, the burden ought to be placed on the claimant to produce at least photocopies of the enquiry papers, especially when the enquiry is already held to be fair and proper and the workman would have received copies of depositions and relied upon documents during the enquiry.
The Bench also held that the Respondent could not be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong and that the Industrial Tribunal had in effect rewarded the Respondent for his delay by setting aside the dismissal on account of the Bank’s inability to produce old records. Relying on the principle that delay and laches may cause prejudice because material evidence may go missing or become untraceable, the Bench found that the Bank had suffered serious prejudice, including inability to trace witnesses after nearly a quarter of a century. The Bench further observed that the Enquiry Officer’s report itself contained elaborate discussion of evidence, and this was not a case of total absence of evidence.
The Bench finally observed that acquittal in the criminal prosecution did not affect the dismissal because the Respondent had been dismissed pursuant to a separate domestic enquiry, and the tests in domestic enquiry and criminal prosecution are entirely different. Since the purpose of domestic enquiry is to enforce discipline in the establishment and the standard is distinct from criminal prosecution, mere acquittal in the criminal case could not be a ground to set aside the finding of guilt in the disciplinary proceedings.
Briefly, the Respondent was appointed as a Clerk with the Petitioner-Bank on January 11, 1979 and, while posted at the Chakan Branch, was placed under suspension on February 13, 1997 on allegations of misappropriation of monies of the Bank’s customers. A chargesheet dated October 16, 1999 was issued alleging four charges relating to fraudulent withdrawals from the accounts of Kaluram Tupe, Pratidnya Transport, S.N. Chavan, and S.K. Karpe & Sons.
A domestic enquiry was conducted between March 02, 2000 and May 16, 2000 in which the Respondent participated with a defence representative, 11 management witnesses were examined, and the Enquiry Officer, by report dated July 11, 2000, held the charges proved. After show cause proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the Respondent from service on October 18, 2000, and the departmental appeal was rejected on September 19, 2001. Separately, the Respondent was acquitted in the criminal case on June 19, 2013, after which he demanded reinstatement on August 10, 2013 and approached the Conciliation Officer on October 14, 2013, resulting in a Reference by the Central Government on June 26, 2014.
Before the Industrial Tribunal, the Respondent filed his Statement of Claim only on April 04, 2018. The Petitioner-Bank stated that it could not produce the complete enquiry record because the originals had been destroyed as per the practice of the Bank after lapse of time, and neither side was able to produce the depositions of witnesses and other enquiry documents.
By Part-I Award dated August 09, 2024, the Industrial Tribunal held that the enquiry was fair, proper and legal and in accordance with principles of natural justice, but held the findings of the Enquiry Officer to be perverse because the evidence recorded in the enquiry was not available before it. By Final Award dated January 23, 2025, the Tribunal declared the dismissal illegal and unjust and directed payment of full back wages from October 18, 2000 till superannuation with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
