Patna High Court
The Zonal ManagerversusBimal Chandra Mishra
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The proviso to Section 11A does not preclude the Tribunal from taking fresh evidence on victimisation or unfair labour practice, and the Tribunal’s award was not illegal; therefore the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The Central Bank of India dismissed its Head Cashier, Bimal Chandra Mishra, for allegedly failing to credit a customer’s cash deposit, after an internal enquiry and disciplinary proceedings. Mishra appealed the dismissal, and the Industrial Tribunal set aside the dismissal in an award dated 20 July 2023, holding that the bank’s action was not justified. The bank’s management filed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s award, contending that the Tribunal violated the proviso to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by taking fresh evidence. The respondents argued that due process was observed and that the Tribunal was entitled to consider fresh evidence on issues of victimisation and unfair labour practice. The Patna High Court examined the statutory provision and precedent, concluding that Section 11A does not bar the Tribunal from admitting fresh evidence on such matters and that no fresh material beyond the bank’s documents was introduced. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the earlier stay, directing the bank to comply with the Tribunal’s order.
Issues considered
- Whether the proviso to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 bars a Labour Tribunal from taking fresh evidence in a dismissal dispute.
- Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in setting aside the disciplinary authority’s dismissal order.
- Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s award should be allowed.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 11A
Subjects
- Industrial Dispute
- Dismissal
- Section 11A
- Fresh Evidence
- Labour Tribunal
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Writ Petition
- Bank Employee
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3262 of 2024
======================================================
1. The Zonal Manager Central Bank of India, 3rd Floor, Maurya Lok Complex,
Patna.
2. The Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India,
Alalpatti, PO- DMCH, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bimal Chandra Mishra Son of Late Buchi Mishra R/o P.O. and P.S.-
Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani.
2. The Industrial Tribunal, Patna through its presiding Officer.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siddharth Harsh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners
(Management-Bank) and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
a) For issuance of an
appropriate writ/order/direction setting
aside the Award dt.20/07/2023 passed by the
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna
in Reference Case no.01(C) of 2021 where
under and whereby the tribunal has set aside
the order of the Disciplinary Authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
2/22
dt.06/08/2015 dismissing the respondent and
the order dt.01/02/2016 passed by the
Appellate Authority confirming the order of
Disciplinary Authority.
b) For staying the effect of the
impugned Award dt.20/07/2023 passed by
the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Patna in Reference Case no.01(C) of 2021
during pendency of this writ application.
c) For any other relief or reliefs
for which the petitioner would be found
entitled to in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners
(Management-Bank) submits that the petitioners are office
bearers of a nationalized bank, namely, the Central Bank of
India, a body corporate. He further submits that respondent No.
1 was an employee of the Central Bank of India and in the year
2011 he was posted as Head Cashier at Singhwara Branch under
the Darbhanga Regional Office of the Central Bank of India.
One customer of the bank deposited Rs. 36,000/- in cash in his
CKCC account bearing A/c No. 2241733201 at the Singhwara
Branch of the Central Bank of India. This amount was received
by the private respondent in cash but the same was not credited
to the said account of the depositor. It was further alleged that
the same account holder came again on 14.06.2011 to deposit
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
3/22
Rs. 10,000/- in his CKCC account and raised his objection
regarding non-deposit of Rs. 36,000/- in his account. On
showing the deposit slip signed by the private respondent, the
Branch made a credit entry of the said Rs. 36,000/- in the
account of the customer on 14.06.2011. He further submits that
the account of the customer was reversed by the private
respondent on 06.08.2011 and thus the amount deposited by the
customer was never handed over to the Bank. He further
submits that the said customer submitted a written complaint on
24.07.2013 to the Deputy Regional Manager of the Bank. After
receiving the complaint of the customer, the Bank, upon
verifying the allegations, issued a letter to the private respondent
to submit his explanation. The explanation submitted by the
private respondent was not found satisfactory and, therefore, the
Bank issued a charge memo on 03.11.2014 to the private
respondent. He further submits that upon receiving the charge
memo, the private respondent did not file any show cause
against the said charge sheet. However, the private respondent
submitted his reply on 08.06.2015 when the enquiry was already
over. He was also provided an opportunity to defend himself
and to lead his evidence. The Enquiry Officer initiated the
inquiry and, after granting several dates and issuing notice to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
4/22
private respondent, in which the private respondent appeared,
despite being given full opportunity, the private respondent did
not produce any witness. However, the private respondent
produced 15 documents. After going through the documents, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.06.2015, which was
communicated to the Disciplinary Authority on 23.06.2015. He
further submits that the Disciplinary Authority, after going
through the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the submissions
of the private respondent in defence of the enquiry report,
passed an order on 06.08.2015 inflicting the punishment of
dismissal upon the private respondent without notice under
Clause 6(a) of the DAP for Workmen dated 10.04.2002. Counsel
further submits that the private respondent preferred an appeal
before the Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy General Manager of
the Bank at the Zonal Office, Patna. Upon granting opportunity,
the appellate order was passed against him and the order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority was approved. Thereafter, the
private respondent preferred CWJC No. 4747 of 2016
challenging the orders passed in the departmental proceedings.
However, the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground
that the private respondent had already filed an application
before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna for
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
5/22
conciliation. Counsel further submits that the conciliation failed
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and, in terms of
letter dated 20.05.2019, he referred the dispute to the
Government. Subsequently, the Central Government, in terms of
letter dated 08.01.2021 issued by the Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central), Patna, referred the dispute to the
Industrial Tribunal, Patna. The Industrial Tribunal registered the
case bearing Reference Case No. 01(C) of 2021. He further
submits that before the Tribunal also the matter was fully
contested, however, it was decided against the Management-
Bank, against which the petitioners (Management-Bank) have
preferred the present writ petition. Counsel further submits that
at the time of passing of the order there has been a gross
violation of the proviso to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Act No. 14 of 1947) [hereinafter referred to as Act of
1947], which clearly provides that in case of dismissal of an
employee, the Tribunal is not to take evidence afresh and has to
decide the matter on the material already available on record.
Counsel further submits that the Tribunal took evidence afresh
and, without examining the evidence in its proper perspective,
illegally set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority in terms of its Award dated 20.07.2023,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
6/22
which was published in the Gazette on 23.09.2023.
4. Counsel has specifically pleaded that the
Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the said amount of Rs.
36,000/- was never deposited by the private respondent in the
Bank and the entry in the account of the said customer was
superfluous, which was reversed and corrected on 06.08.2011
by the private respondent himself. Counsel further submits that,
prima facie, on the ground that there has been a gross violation
of the proviso to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 in the present case, the entire adjudication made by the
Industrial Tribunal resulting in the Award is bad in law and fit to
be set aside.
5. During his argument, counsel for the petitioners
(Management-Bank) relied on the judgment passed by this
Hon’ble Court in LPA No. 35 of 1989 decided on 10.05.1990
(Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd Vs. Labour Court and Ors.),
reported in 1990(2) PLJR 797, equivalent to
MANU/BH/0079/1990. Counsel further relied on another
judgment in the case of Neeta Kaplish Vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court and Ors., reported in AIR 1999 SC 698 and
submits that paragraph 16 is very clear that after the
introduction of Section 11A, die legal position as to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
7/22
jurisdiction of the Labour Court of Tribunal to itself decide the
merits of charges on fresh evidence remained unaltered.
Therefore, in light of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India, also in the present case there is a violation of Section
11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the findings of the
Tribunal are absolutely bad in law and, therefore, the Award and
the order passed by the Tribunal are liable to be set aside, which
have been challenged by way of the present relief sought.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other
hand, submits that in the present case due process of law has
been followed. Counsel further submits that after the orders
were passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
Authority, the private respondent preferred CWJC No. 4747 of
2016, which was disposed off on the ground that the private
respondent had filed an application before the Regional Labour
Commissioner for conciliation of the matter. He further submits
that the said conciliation was conducted completely in
accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Counsel further submits that upon failure of conciliation,
the matter was referred to the Central Government and the
question of reference was framed. Thereafter, the matter was
referred to the Industrial Tribunal and the case was registered as
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
8/22
Reference Case No. 01(C) of 2021 before the Industrial
Tribunal, Patna. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal issued
notice upon receiving the reference and directed the parties to
file their pleadings with a view to decide the reference. Counsel
further submits that upon receiving notice from the Industrial
Tribunal, both parties appeared and filed their pleadings before
the Tribunal and, for the purpose of adjudication, adduced their
oral and documentary evidence. The learned Industrial Tribunal,
Patna, upon appreciation of all the materials on record, decided
the reference in favour of the private respondent. Counsel
further submits that at no point of time did the Management-
Bank raise any objection that evidence should not be taken and
the matter be decided without taking evidence afresh. Counsel
further submits that for the first time, after allowing the
reference in favour of the private respondent and preparation of
the Award, when the Management-Bank filed the present writ
petition, this plea was taken by the Management-Bank that there
was violation of the proviso to Section 11A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
7. Counsel further submits that the case on which
the petitioners (Management-Bank) is relying, i.e., Indian
Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra), does not create an absolute bar on
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
9/22
taking evidence at the level of the Labour Court. Counsel
further submits that the said decision, rendered by a three-Judge
Bench of this Hon’ble Court, is actually in favour of the
respondents.
8. Counsel further submits that in paragraph 12 of
the Industrial Tribunal, Patna in Reference Case No. 01(C) of
2021, dated 20.07.2023, a categorical finding of the Tribunal is
recorded, in which it has been acknowledged that actually no
physical loss of money accrued to the Bank. He further submits
that the Tribunal has categorically observed that if defalcation of
money had been made by the private respondent in the Bank in
the year 2011, particularly on 30.05.2011 as alleged by the
Management-Bank, then no FIR was lodged by the
Management-Bank for the alleged irregularity committed by the
respondent workman, for reasons best known to the petitioners
(Management-Bank).
9. Counsel further submits that the charge was
framed against the workman only in 2014, i.e., after a lapse of
about three years. He further submits that in light of the finding
of the Tribunal that there was no actual loss of money caused to
the bank and the irregularity only pertained to an entry of
money received from the customer in the cash balance register
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
10/22
despite the amount being deposited in the account, the Tribunal
reached the reference and decided it in favour of the private
respondent and prepared the Award.
10. Upon hearing the parties and perusing the
records, it transpires to this Court that the dispute between the
petitioners (Management-Bank) and the private respondent has
been tested originally before the Disciplinary Authority, the
Appellate Authority and the Labour Tribunal. This Court is of
the view that concurrent findings of fact have been tested at
three levels and, therefore, this Court restrains itself from
entering into the findings of fact.
11. So far as the question of law, whether the
proviso to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is in
favour of the respondents or in favour of the petitioners
(Management-Bank), is concerned, it is necessary to quote the
relevant section, which states as follows:-
[11A. Powers of Labour Courts,
Tribunals and National Tribunals to give
appropriate relief in case of discharge or
dismissal of workmen.—Where an industrial
dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal
of a workman has been referred to a Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for
adjudication and, in the course of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
11/22
adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case
may be, is satisfied that the order of
discharge or dismissal was not justified, it
may, by its award, set aside the order of
discharge or dismissal and direct
reinstatement of the workman on such terms
and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give
such other relief to the workman including
the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of
discharge or dismissal as the circumstances
of the case may require:
Provided that in any proceeding
under this section the Labour Court,
Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case
may be, shall rely only on the materials on
record and shall not take any fresh evidence
in relation to the matter.]
12. The judgment on which the petitioners
(Management-Bank) relied was rendered by a three-Judge
Bench of this Hon’ble Court, namely, Indian Aluminium Co.
Ltd. (supra). In this judgment, a question was decided by the
three-Judge Bench of this Hon’ble Patna High Court, namely
whether, in view of the proviso to Section 11A any fresh
evidence can be adduced on the point of victimisation, unfair
labour practice, and mala fide on the part of the management,
and whether such evidence is permissible or not. In this regard,
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
12/22
after a detailed discussion, the findings of all three Hon’ble
Judges were different.
13. The first finding was by the then Hon’ble Chief
Justice G.G. Sohani, who observed that: “I see no cogent reason
to take, a view different from that taken in the decsion in CWJC
No. 58 of 1982 (R) on which reliance was placed by the learned
single Judge. No case is, therefore, made out for interference
with the order passed by the learned single Judge.”
14. The finding of the then Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.
Roy, is as follows:-
11. I agree. However, I am
adding few words of my own.
12. During the course of
hearing of the writ petition, it was found
necessary to notice the ordersheet of the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi.
The record was called for.
The management had in the
written statement stated that the domestic
enquiry heid against respondent No. 2, the
workman was fair and proper. Respondent
No. 2 in his written statement stated that the
domestic enquiry was vitiated as there has
been violation of the principles of natural
justice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
13/22
13. The management prayed for
deciding the question of validity of the
domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. I
may notice that no specific order or point in
this regard was framed by the Labour Court.
But from the order of the Labour Court
dated 11th June 1983, that appeared to be
the position. This fact is again confirmed by
the order of the Labour Court dated 29th
September 1983, wherein it was recorded
that argument on the question of validity of
the domestic enquiry begun. On 14th
December 1983 order was passed and the
first paragraph of that order reads as
follows:
“This is an order on legality
and validity of the domestic enquiry”.
It is thus clear that the parties
led evidence only on the question of legality
and validity of the domestic enquiry and
along with that the order of dismissal of
respondent No. 2 on the ground of
victimisation and unfair labour practise was
not taken up by the Labour Court.
14. It is not the case of the
management that while trying the question
of fairness of the domestic enquiry, the
Presiding Officer called upon respondent
No. 2 to adduce evidence on his assertion
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
14/22
that the order was bad as it was a case of
victimisation or unfair labour practise. The
allegation of respondent No. 2 about
victimisation and unfair labour practise
could not have been gone into by the enquiry
officer. Respondent No. 2 was entitled to
raise this question before the Labour Court.
Since the Labour Court did not call upon the
respondent No. 2 to lead evidence on the
question of victimisation and unfair labour
practise, while deciding the fairness of the
domestic enquiry, respondent No. 2 was
entitled to pray to the Labour Court to allow
him to lead evidence on this point, when the
domestic enquiry was held to be fair.
15. Dr. Pal in support of his
contention that the Labour Court had no
jurisdiction to allow respondent No. 2 to
lead further evidence relied in Rohtas
Industries Ltd. v. The Workmen and Ors.
1978 L.I.C. 949, and Cawnpur Sugar Works
v. The State of Bihar MANU/BH/0371/1984:
1984 P.L.J.R. 813.
16. In Rohtas Industry (supra)
the award of the Tribunal was challenged
both by the management and the workmen,
the former challenged on the ground that the
Tribunal could not have ordered for re-
instatement by holding that the charge had
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
15/22
not been proved, and the latter challenged
the award on the ground that as the Labour
Court held that charge had not been proved,
it should have passed an order of
reinstatement. The Tribunal held that the
domestic enquiry was fair and the workmen
accepted this position. Notwithstanding
these facts, the Tribunal directed the parties
to adduce fresh evidence with regard to the
charge framed against the workman. One of
the questions raised before the High Court
was that once the Tribunal held the domestic
enquiry to be fair whether it could have
directed the parties to lead further evidence
with regard to the charge framed against the
workmen. Relying on Workmen v. Fire Stone
Tyre Rubber Company India (P) Ltd. (supra)
it was held that the Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to admit fresh evidence on that
point.
In Cawnpur Sugar Works
(supra), the workmen, after holding the
domestic enquiry, were dismissed from
service. The Labour Court held that the
domestic enquiry was fair and proper. The
management thereafter had led further
evidence before the Labour Court to prove
the charge against the workmen. The Labour
Court while giving the award confined itself
to the records of the domestic enquiry and
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
16/22
rejected the prayer of the management to
consider the fresh evidence brought by it
before the Labour Court. The Division
Bench upheld the order of the Labour Court
by holding that as the domestic enquiry had
been held to be fair and proper, there was no
question of leading fresh/additional evidence
to prove the charge. The principle laid down
in both the cases, i.e. in Rohtas Industry and
Cawnpur Sugar Works (supra) has no
application to the facts of this case.
17. These are also some of the
reasons for which I am of the opinion that
the learned Single Judge whose judgment is
subject matter of this appeal was correct.
15. It has been held that the judgment passed by the
single Judge was to be followed.
16. Further, the finding of the third Hon’ble Judge,
the then Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha, also concurred with the
same conclusion that the decision made by the single Judge was
to be followed. His finding has been recorded in paragraphs 53
to 55 as follows:-
53. In my opinion, there is not
much conflict in the aferementioned
decisions.
54. The Supreme Court in
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
17/22
Firestone's Case (supra) clearly laid-down
that although in the event a preliminary
issue with regard to the validity or legality of
the domestic enquiry is decided against the
management, it can lead fresh evidence in
order to satisfy the Labour Court or the
Tribunal that the concerned workman in fact
has committed a misconduct and in that
event, the workman will get an opportunity
to lead evidence contra. It is thus evident
that such evidence will form part of the
'materials on records'
55. While deciding such a
preliminary issue, it will be open to the
workman also to bring on record such
materials as, in his opinion, may be
necessary to show that the domestic enquiry
held by the employer was not an enquiry in
the eye of law i.e. not only the facts
suggesting invalidity of the enquiry or
violation of the principles of natural justice
but the same would also include acts of
victimization, mala fide or unfair of labour
practice on the part of the management
which, if proved, would vitiate the domestic
enquiry itself. Similarly the management can
also adduce fresh evidence to show that the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the
industrial dispute.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
18/22
17. Upon a bare reading of the judgment of this
Hon’ble Court, this Court comes to the conclusion that it has
been held in that case that the proviso to Section 11A of the
Industrial Disputes Act did not take away the right of employee
to adduce evidence with regard to bias or victimisation, i.e., no
bar in adducing evidence on the pleas of mala fide, victimisation
or unfair labour practice on the part of the employer.
18. It also transpires to this Court that from the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on which the
petitioners (Management-Bank) relied later on, namely Neeta
Kaplish (supra), paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 19 state as follows:–
14. Provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act were thus amended on the
recommendation of the International Labour
Organization and Section 11A was
introduced in the Act by the Parliament,
wherein it was provided that the Tribunal
had not only the power to set aside the order
of dismissal and direct reinstatement of the
workman, it had also the power to award
lesser punishment The Proviso to Section
11A, however, provided that the Tribunal
would rely only on the material already on
record and shall not take fresh evidence.
15. The provisions of Section
11A, specially the prohibition contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
19/22
the Proviso that the Labour Court would not
take any fresh evidence, came to be
considered by this Court in several cases
which we shall shortly notice but even before
the introduction of Section 11A, this Court in
Ritz Theatre (Pvl) Ltd. Delhi v. Its Workmen,
MANU/SC/0265/1962: (1962)IILLJ498bSC,
laid down that where the Management relied
upon the domestic enquiry in defending its
action, it would be the duty of the Tribunal
to first consider the validity of the domestic
enquiry and only when it came to the
conclusion that the enquiry was improper or
invalid, it would itself go into the merits of
the case and call upon the parties to lead
evidence.
16. Even after the introduction
of Section 11A, die legal position as to the
jurisdiction of the Labour Court of Tribunal
to itself decide the merits of charges on fresh
evidence remained unaltered.
19. The Court further
observed :
“We are, therefore, clearly of
opinion that when a case of dismissal or
discharge of an employee is referred for
industrial adjudication, the Labour Court
should first decide as preliminary issue:
whether the domestic enquiry has violated
the principles of natural justice. When there
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
20/22
is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry
is admitted by the employer, there will be no
difficulty. But when the matter is in
controversy between the parties, that
question must be decided as a preliminary
issue. On that decision being pronounced, it
will be for A the management to decide
whether it will adduce any evidence before
that Labour Court. If it chooses not to
adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter
permissible, in any proceeding to raise the
issue.”
19. With a view to decide the issue, in the said case
the decision to allow the management to lead fresh evidence
was supported, but in the said case the management did not lead
any fresh evidence on the merits. It is due to this reason that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India remanded the matter to the
Labour Court, directing the management to lead evidence afresh
and then decide the matter within a fresh period of time.
Therefore, upon perusal of both the judgments on which the
petitioners (Management-Bank) relied in this case, this Court
reaches the finding that neither the Hon’ble three-Judge Bench
of this Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. (supra)
nor the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India judgment in Neeta
Kaplish (supra) has created any bar in taking fresh evidence
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
21/22
under the proviso to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
20. Upon discussion of the above position of law as
well as the judgments referred to, this Court hereby decides that
in the present case the question of reference is as follows:-
“Whether the action of the
Management-Bank of the Central Bank of India in
imposing the punishment of dismissal on the
workman Shri Bimal Chandra Mishra is fair, legal,
or justified? If not, what relief is the workman
entitled to? This Court is of the firm view that the
word testing the dismissal of the respondent from
service as fair, legal, or justified implies the right of
the employee to adduce evidence with regard to
victimisation, malafide conduct, or unfair labour
practice on the part of the employer.”
21. On the question of the finding of fact, there is a
conclusive finding in paragraph 12. Upon perusal of the
judgment, this Court finds that only one witness was examined
on behalf of the employee and one witness on behalf of the
employer, otherwise, both parties relied on the documents of the
Bank itself. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no fresh
Patna High Court CWJC No.3262 of 2024 dt.10-02-2026
22/22
material has been considered. All the materials relied upon are
of the Bank, and for the purpose of producing these documents
as exhibits, these two witnesses were examined and adduced
evidence.
22. With this reason, this Court hereby dismisses
the writ petition. The stay granted by this Court on 14.03.2024
is hereby vacated. The petitioners (Management-Bank) is
directed to comply with the order of the Tribunal within 60 days
from the date of production of this order, otherwise, the
complaint case filed before the Civil Court, in light of Section
32 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall be proceeded with.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…