SBI loses 32-year battle: Delhi High Court orders full benefits to clerk’s kin

“The review petition is an attempt to re-argue the matter on merits. The relief of remand has, in any event, been rendered impracticable due to the demise of the workman,” the court said in its April 6 order.

The Delhi High Court was hearing the SBI’s review petition seeking reconsideration of the court’s June 2, 2023 judgment, by which the bank’s challenge to a labour court award was dismissed.

Justice Shail Jain ruled that remanding the case for fresh evidence was “impracticable” following the death of the workman, S K Taparia.

The SBI was earlier directed to compute and release financial benefits to the clerk’s heirs as if the workman had remained in continuous service till the date of his death or superannuation.

‘Workman died during proceedings’

• The Delhi High Court noted that the dispute stemmed from disciplinary action initiated in 1994, followed by a labour court award in 2003 and adjudication of the writ petition in 2023, and the present review petition was being considered after more than three decades of litigation.
• It emphasised that the employer’s right to lead evidence is not unilateral but is accompanied by the clerk’s corresponding right to cross-examine witnesses and lead rebuttal evidence.
• Crucially, the Delhi High Court highlighted that the workman had died during the pendency of the proceedings. In his absence, any remand for fresh evidence would render the process inherently one-sided and violative of principles of natural justice.
• The high court found that reopening the matter on a procedural ground would not advance the cause of justice but would rather unsettle rights which have already crystallised in favour of the legal heirs of the clerk at this stage.
• The principles of finality and substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations, the high court pointed out.
• The Delhi High Court has also pointed out that the law in this regard is well settled: any challenge to a decision on merits cannot be the subject matter of a review petition, as it falls within the purview of an appeal, and such a challenge cannot be considered in a review petition.
• A party cannot re-agitate its submissions already made at the time of the hearing of the matter, by way of a review petition.
• The high court stated that a review petition is not in the nature of a rehearing of a matter.

Discharged from service

S K Taparia joined the services of the SBI in August 1974 as a clerk on a permanent basis at Sadulsahar branch in Rajasthan and was subsequently transferred to various branches, including Hapur.

He was placed under suspension with effect from December 28, 1989, on allegations of financial irregularities and misconduct. Subsequently, a chargesheet was served upon him alleging that he had operated fictitious accounts, engaged in business transactions by forging signatures of customers, negotiated instruments beyond his known sources of income, and maintained heavy personal transactions disproportionate to his income.

A departmental enquiry was conducted, and the enquiry report of April 1993 held that certain charges were held proved while several other charges were held not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with the findings relating to the charges held not proved and issued a tentative decision on April 18, 1994, proposing the punishment of discharge from service and furnishing reasons for disagreement to the clerk for submitting his response.

The clerk submitted his reply and was also granted an opportunity of personal hearing, and lastly, the disciplinary authority passed a final order in October 1994, discharging him from service.

Aggrieved by the same, he filed for a departmental appeal, but the same was dismissed. Later, he approached the industrial tribunal, which, by an order of February 2003, held that the punishment of discharge was illegal and unjustified and directed the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, full back wages, along with 9 per cent interest and consequential benefits.

The SBI, thereafter, challenged this award before the Delhi High Court. However, during the pendency of this plea, the clerk died, and his legal heirs were substituted on record. Subsequently, the high court, by an order of June 2023, declined to interfere with the said award and directed the SBI to compute and release the financial benefits payable to the clerk as if he had remained in continuous service till the date of his death or superannuation.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the SBI filed the present review plea before the Delhi High Court.

Arguments of legal heirs, SBI

Representing the SBI, advocate Rajiv Kapur argued that the labour court held the domestic enquiry to be defective. It was duty-bound in law to grant an opportunity to the management to substantiate the charges by leading independent evidence.

Kapur added that the failure to grant such an opportunity amounts to a jurisdictional error, which makes the award illegal.

Lastly, he submitted that the judgment of the tribunal is liable to be reviewed as the non-consideration of the jurisdictional ground has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and falls within the parameters of review jurisdiction.

On the contrary, appearing on behalf of the legal heirs of the clerk, advocate B S Randhawa opposed the present review petition and submitted that the same is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

He further added that the SBI is seeking to re-argue the entire matter, which has already been conclusively adjudicated by the Delhi High Court while deciding the petition. He also put forward that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and cannot be invoked for re-appreciation of facts or substitution of a different view on merits.

Axis Bank ordered to pay Rs 3.19 crore to firm

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has directed Axis Bank to pay Rs 3.19 crore, along with interest, to a logistics company after holding that the bank wrongfully refused to accept demonetised currency deposits during the 2016 demonetisation window.

A bench comprising presiding member AVM Jonnalagadda Rajendra (Retd) and member Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was on March 10 hearing a complaint filed by Procure Logistics Services Private Limited against the bank.