Case: Desh Raj Gupta Vs. Industrial Tribunal Iv, U.P., Lucknow and Another

( 2. ) The appellant was working as an Assistant Cashier in the Rampur Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., when a reference of an industrial dispute was made under S. 4-A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act). The provisions of the U. P. Act relevant to the present case are similar to those of the Central Act, that is,the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 4-A of the U. P. Act, like the corresponding S. 10 of the Central Act, empowers the State Government to refer industrial disputes to Labour Courts or Tribunals. During the pendency of the reference the appellant was put under suspension and served with a charge-sheet in February 1976, which was followed by a domestic inquiry leading to the dismissal of the appellant from service on 16-8-1976. The U. P. Act in Ss. 6-E and 6-F incorporates provisions similar to those in Ss. 33 and 33-A of the Central Act. The appellant filed a complaint under S. 6-F of the U. P. Act before the Industrial Tribunal, and the same was treated as a dispute referred to it, and was finally disposed of by the Award which was impugned before the High Court.( 3. ) The Tribunal, in the first instance, examined the case of the appellant on the question whether principles of natural justice had been followed in the ,domestic inquiry, and after hearing the parties, decided the issue by its order dated 23-2-1979 in favour of the workman. Proceeding further the Tribunal asked the management to justify the order of punishment on merits. Accordingly, the parties led their evidence and the Tribunal recorded a finding that the charges levelled were established by the materials on the record and the workman, therefore, was not entitled to any relief.( 4. ) As stated earlier, the appellant challenged the award before the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition. By a well discussed judgment, which is now under challenge before us, the High Court dismissed the writ application.

Reasoning:
( 8. ) Analysing the situation, it appears that by asking the respondent to justify the punishment by adducing additional evidence, the Tribunal merely reminded the employer of his rights and the employer promptly availed of the opportunity. We do not find any illegality in the course adopted which could vitiate the Award. The first point is, therefore, rejected.( 9. ) The second ground urged in support of the appeal appears to be well founded. The learned counsel is right in relying on the observations in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha: (1980) 2 SCR 146  at p. 215: (AIR 1980 SC 1896 at p. 1933), that if the order of punishment passed by the management is declared illegal and the punishment is upheld subsequently by a labour tribunal, the date of dismissal cannot relate back to the date of the illegal order of the employer. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to his salary from 16-8-1976 to 20-7-1980 and the entire amount should be paid by the respondent Bank within a period of three months from today. If the amount is not paid or offered to the appellant as directed, the respondent Bank will be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 12 Per Cent per annum for the future period commencing on the date of expiry of three months from today till the same is realised.