IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2142 of 2008 United Bank of India, through the Chief Regional Manager, Bihar Region, Abhay Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Fraser Road, Patna, P.S.-Kotwali, District- Patna, having its Head Office at-11, Hemant Basu Sarani, Kolkata-700001. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. 2. Regional/Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) 2nd Floor, Maurya Lok, Patna. 3. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna, Baily Road, Patna. 4. Mr. Sarat Chandra Srivastava, S/o-Late Ganga Prasad Srivastava, working as Cashier-cum-General Clerk, United Bank of India, Jalalpur Branch, P.O.- Sahay Nagar, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner : Dr. Sadanand Jha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha. For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh. ------------ 07 20.05.2010 Heard the parties. United Bank of India has filed this writ petition challenging the industrial award given by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna in Reference Case No.3(C) of 2004/2006. The private- respondent no.4 is the workman in relation to whom the dispute arose. A reference was made by Government of India in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, which is quoted herein:- “Whether the two domestic enquiries conducted by the management of United Bank of India, Patna in the case of Shri Sharat Chandra Shrivastava, Cashier-cum-General Clerk were free from bias and were according to the Principles of Natural Justice and the punishment imposed on him is just and legal? If not what relief the workman is entitled to?” From the above, it would be seen that the reference was to - 2 - the Tribunal to determine:- (i) Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted free from bias? (ii) Whether the enquiries held were according to the principles of natural justice? (iii) Whether the punishment imposed is just and legal? (iv) If not to what relief the workman is entitled to? The matter was considered in detail by the Industrial Tribunal. Pursuant to the aforesaid reference, on 14th August, 2007 the Tribunal gave the award. The Bank has challenged the award. The private-respondent has supported the award. In the disciplinary proceedings, there were three charges (i) gross insubordination (ii) making false claims and (iii) attempting to embezzle Bank cash deposited by the customers. In the departmental proceedings, all three charges were held to be proved and upon consideration thereof, a punishment of lowering one stage pay-scale was awarded. On reference, unfortunately, the Industrial Tribunal has proceeded to act as an appellate authority and forgot the limited reference made to it. It did not give any finding with regard to bias. It did not give any finding of the disciplinary proceedings being vitiated on account of bias or on account of failure to follow the principles of natural justice. To contrary, the finding of the Tribunal is that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in an unbiased manner and in accordance with principles of natural justice, but, then it went to examine the charges on merits and gave a finding that the - 3 - charges were not established and that being so, it set aside the order of the disciplinary authority in toto. It is submitted on behalf of the Bank that the Tribunal having held that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with law could not go into the question whether charges were proved or not because that was not the jurisdiction in the reference. He then had to proceed in the third issue whether punishment was commensurate to the charge as proved. He thus had to assume the charges as proved. He was not to sit in appeal over that matter, as there was no reference on the point of maintainability of charge or establishment of the charge. In my view, the submission on behalf of the Bank appears to be correct. If the Industrial Tribunal was required to go into the question of charge and whether they were sustainable or not, that would have been the question itself but that was not the question. The questions were specific with regard to bias, principle of natural justice and quantum of punishment. It is clear from the reading of the award that the Tribunal proceeded as an appellate Court to examine the entire matter as before the disciplinary authority, which was not the jurisdiction conferred on it in industrial reference. That being so, I have no hesitation in setting aside the award as made and challenged in this writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)