Delay of 13-years Bar Industrial Dispute of Bank Employee against Dismissal
Bank Employee – Dismissal from Service – Dispute Raised after 13 years
The bank employee was dismissed from service on 18.10.2000 on the charges of fraud in the bank accounts.
The employee, however, raised the industrial dispute after 13 years I.e. on 14.10.2013, after his acquittal in the criminal case.
In the meanwhile, the Bank had destroyed the records relating to the disciplinary enquiry and could not be produce before the Industrial Tribunal.
The bank witness deposed that the Bank was unable to produce bank customers and employees, who were examined in the domestic enquiry. Since they were not traceable, the Respondent filed a pursis that he did not wish to lead any oral evidence.
By the Award dated 23.1.2025, the Tribunal held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and the dismissal is illegal.
Respondent cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong. The demand for reinstatement raised by him on 10 August 2013 was hopelessly time barred. The Reference itself should not have been made in respect of such a stale claim. Though Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 does not provide for any specific period of limitation for making a Reference, at the same, a Reference can be made only in respect of an existing industrial dispute. It is difficult to hold that as on 10 August 2013, any industrial dispute relating to Respondent’s dismissal existed.
In the present case, what the Industrial Tribunal is doing is something which cannot be countenanced in law. It has rewarded the Respondent for his acts of delay. It is one thing to permit adjudication of a stale claim by ignoring or condoning the delay and it is an altogether different thing to offer on a platter relief in favour of a negligent litigant because the opposite party has destroyed the records in the meantime. When a delayed claim is sought to be adjudicated, the Courts must put the burden on the claimant to produce atleast photocopies of the documents even though the originals are supposed to be in custody of the opposite party. In any case, the opposite party cannot be penalized for non-preservation of documents when the Claimant acts negligently and approaches the Court after considerable delay.
Judgment dated 22.6.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.15893 of 2025 of Bank of India Vs. Sharad Rajaram Khadtare
