Tribunal Order On Legality Of Domestic Enquiry Can Be Challenged Without Waiting For Final Order : Calcutta High Court

Background Facts

In a reference before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (Tribunal) at Kolkata in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. Their Workman Sri Sitangshu Bhusan Majumdar, the Tribunal decided the issue of disproportionate punishment without first deciding the preliminary issue regarding validity and legality of the domestic inquiry. Thus, the writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Tribunal.

The Petitioner contended that the Tribunal could have interfered with the quantum of punishment and substitute the punishment imposed by the Petitioner only after deciding the issue of legality of domestic inquiry. Thus the Tribunal should have first decided on the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry and only after deciding this preliminary issue could the Tribunal have gone into the issue of disproportionate punishment.

On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that the writ petition is premature as the Tribunal has not finally decided the issue referred to it. Till the time there is a final decision on the reference, the writ petition cannot be maintainable.

Findings of the Court

The court placed reliance on the judgment of M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr wherein the Supreme Court had laid down that how a Tribunal should hear a reference in connection with a challenge to a domestic enquiry. The Supreme Court in the said case had observed that it is obligatory upon the Labour Court to first decide the question of whether the domestic inquiry was legal and proper as a preliminary question. If the domestic inquiry was proper and legal, then the next question to be considered by the Labour Court is whether the punishment for dismissal is commensurate with the offence.

The court observed that the Tribunal had not followed the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M.L. Singla.

The court further observed that it is alleged that the writ petition is premature as the Tribunal has not finally decided the issue. However, the Tribunal has proceeded in a way which is contrary to the settled position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in M.L. Singla and thus the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. The court further held that

Once an order of a Tribunal is in excess of jurisdiction, the same can be challenged in a writ petition without waiting for the final order to challenge the findings apart from on merits on the ground of being in excess of jurisdiction

With the aforesaid observations, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the Tribunal to hear the matter afresh following the ratio laid down in the case of M.L.Singla

Case No.- WPA 9360 of 2024

Case Name- CSB Bank Ltd vs UOI & Anr.

Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. Ranjay De, Mr. Basabjit Banerjee, Mr. Adityajit Abel Bose

Counsel for Respondents- Mr. Arnab Kumar Neogi

Click Here To Read/Download Order