Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9881 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.8181 of 2013)

STATE BANK OF PATIALA                  ... APPELLANT  

           VS.

GENERAL SECRETARY, STAFF UNION & ORS.  ... RESPONDENTS

       J U D G M E N T ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel.

2. Leave granted.

3. Being  aggrieved  by  the  judgment  dated  11th

October, 2012, delivered in LPA No.448/2010 (O&M) by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, this appeal has been filed by the employer-Bank.

Page 2

2

4. The facts giving rise to the litigation, in a nutshell, are as under :

The appellant had appointed Shri Bhagwant Singh, respondent  no.3, as  a  peon  in  1973  and  he  was promoted to the post of record-keeper/godown-keeper in  1984.   In  the  course  of  performance  of  his duties,  he  was  asked  to  look  after  a  godown maintained by the appellant-Bank, wherein stock of the borrowers had been stored. The said stock had been pledged to the appellant-Bank as a security and there was a specific instruction to respondent no.3 that he should not permit anyone to remove the stock without  express  permission  of  the  Branch  Manager concerned.

5. It is an admitted fact that without getting any instruction from the Branch Manager or any higher authority,  the  respondent  godown-keeper  permitted one of the borrowers, whose goods had been pledged and kept in the godown, to take away the goods with

Page 3

3

an  understanding  that  the  said  borrower  would replace the said goods after some time. After the borrower  removed  the  goods,  the  borrower  had replaced  the  goods  with  goods  of  an  inferior quality.   

6. One  need  not  stress  importance  of  removal  of such  goods,  as  removal  of  the  goods  without  any authority from the Bank authorities would adversely affect  security  of  the  Bank  because  the  security which  was  given  to  the  Bank  would  be  reduced  by virtue of removal of the goods or by replacement thereof with goods of an inferior quality. In the instant case, it is also an admitted fact that the goods were replaced by the borrower by other goods which were of inferior quality and therefore, value of the security, which was given by the borrower to the appellant Bank, had been adversely affected.

7.  In the aforesaid circumstances, an inquiry had been initiated against the respondent godown-keeper

Page 4

4

and  after  considering  the  relevant  facts  and examining  the  witnesses  concerned,  the  inquiry officer  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the respondent-workman was guilty of gross misconduct. Ultimately, for the aforesaid misconduct, which had been proved in the inquiry, the respondent-workman was dismissed from service.

8. Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  dismissal, through  the  respondent-Union,  the  respondent godown-keeper approached the Labour Court.

9. After  examining  the  facts  of  the  case  and considering the evidence, the Labour Court exercised its  powers  under  Section  11A  of  the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and found the punishment imposed upon  the  respondent-workman  to  be  harsh  and therefore,  the  punishment  of  dismissal  was substituted  by  a  punishment  of  stoppage  of  5 increments with cumulative effect.  It was further directed to reinstate the respondent godown-keeper with back wages.

Page 5

5

10.  The aforesaid Award made on 14th August, 2008 was  challenged  by  the  appellant  before  the  High Court.  The  learned Single Judge upheld the Award and even the Division Bench in LPA No.448/2010 (O&M) filed by the appellant, confirmed the Award as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge by virtue of the impugned judgment dated 11th October, 2012.

11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been filed.

12.  Upon perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the report of the inquiry officer, the Award made by  the  Labour  Court  and  the  order  passed  by  the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court is not proper.

13.   Upon  perusal  of  the  report  of  the  inquiry officer,  it  is  very  clear  that  the  respondent, godown-keeper, had permitted the borrower to take away his goods, which had been pledged to the bank,

Page 6

6

against  the  specific  instructions  of  the  bank officials and the borrower had replaced the goods with  goods  of  inferior  quality  and  thereby substantial loss was caused to the appellant bank. It is also pertinent to record that the above fact was  admitted  by  the  respondent  godown-keeper.  In spite of the above fact, which had been established in  the  inquiry  proceedings,  for  the  reasons  best known to it, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent godown-keeper was not benefitted by his misconduct and as there was no embezzlement by the workman, the punishment imposed was harsh and therefore, it reduced the punishment from dismissal from  service  to  stoppage  of  5  increments  with cumulative effect.

14.  Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench confirmed the said Award.

15.  What is important in the instant case is that the  respondent-workman  was  appointed  as  a

Page 7

7

godown-keeper  and  his  duty  was  to  protect  the security  given  to  the  appellant-Bank.   It  is  an undisputed fact that without getting any instruction or permission from the higher authorities, namely, the Branch Manager of the Branch concerned or any other higher authority, the respondent godown-keeper permitted the borrower to remove the goods and also permitted him to replace the goods with goods of inferior quality.

16.  First of all, it was not open to the respondent godown-keeper to permit the borrower to remove the goods  because  that  would  adversely  affect  the interest of the appellant-Bank.  By removal of the goods, to the extent of value of the goods removed, security of the Bank had been diminished. That was against  the  interest  of  the  employer  of  the respondent godown-keeper.  This is nothing but gross negligence.  A godown-keeper, who doesn't protect the goods kept in the godown, can be said to have acted carelessly and negligently.  What he did was

Page 8

8

absolutely  against  the  interest  of  his  employer which can never be tolerated.

17.  It is unfortunate that the Labour Court did not take the said fact seriously.  The watchman who does not guard or the godown-keeper who does not keep check on the goods kept in the godown, is of no use and is a liability to the employer.  Such a person cannot be continued in service and, in our opinion, the order of dismissal was just and proper.  The Labour Court ought not to have interfered with such a just order by reducing the punishment in pursuance of its powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

18. We are not referring the judgments which have been  cited  by  the  learned  counsel,  as,  in  our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the aspect with  regard  to  reduction  of  punishment.   In  our opinion, the Labour Court had erred by reducing the punishment.  Such a lenient view cannot be taken as

Page 9

9

it would set a bad precedent among other workmen of the appellant-Bank.

19. For  the  aforesaid  reasons,  we  set  aside  the judgments confirming the Award as well as the Award and we uphold the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-Bank.

20. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs.  Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

      .................J.

[ANIL R. DAVE]

.................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

.................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 30, 2016.