JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
1. The petitioner challenges Exhibit P4 award. In the award, the Labour Court found that the punishment of stoppage of one increment on certain employees is unjustified. According to the petitioner, the award is vitiated on many grounds.
Short facts:
Respondents. 3 to 6 were charge sheeted of having acted prejudicially to the interests of the Bank. The charge levelled against the third respondent reads as follows:
“You are working as Peon at our Panampilly Nagar, Ernakulam branch since February 5, 1981.
A public meeting was organised by the Bank on October 4, 1986 at about 4.30 P.M. in the Town Hall, Ernakulam in connection with the Silver Jubilee Celebrations of our Broadway, Ernakulam branch. The function was attended by several dignitaries, customers and well- wishers of the Bank. When Sri B.A. Prabhu, Deputy General Manager rose to deliver his scheduled speech and took the mike, you along with some others, stood up and shouted slogans like “Go back B.A. Prabhu, we want justice”. You, along with others also exhibited placards reading among others “DGM Go Back” which were till then being concealed under your seat. Sri. T.R. Govinda Warrrier, Advocate, who was presiding over the function appealed to the employees to stop shouting and to resume their seats. You resumed your seat but when Sri B.A. Prabhu, Deputy General Manager stood up for a second time to speak, you along with others, rose again, shouted derogatory slogans as stated above and prevented him to deliver his speech. In spite of repeated appeals made by Sri. P. Narendranath, Divisional Manager, Ernakulam and Sri. K.Mukunda Menon, Senior Manager of Broadway, Ernakulam branch to calm down and co-operate with the organisers in conducting the function in a proper way, you continued to shout slogans along with others without paying heed to their repeated requests and thereby disrupted the smooth conduct of the meeting. Due to the disturbance made by you and others, Sri B.A. Prabhu, Deputy General Manager could not deliver his -speech. A pamphlet in Malayalam was also distributed among the persons assembled there.
Your above actions were deliberate to tarnish the fair name and image of the Bank and to belittle the executive in the eyes of the public. Your disorderly and indecent behaviour also marred the function organised by the Bank. Your above actions being prejudicial to the interests of the Bank, you have committed gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation 3 Clause (m) of the Canara Bank Service Code.”
It is not in dispute that the very same charge is levelled against the other party respondents also. Domestic enquiry was conducted, charges were proved and a punishment of barring one increment without cumulative was imposed. Departmental appeal was not successful, dispute was raised and the issue was referred for adjudication. The reference is: “Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment on Sri. Mani Thomas, K.R. Krishna Menon, A. Raghuthaman and H.M. Lucykutty is justified? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled?” On the basis of the pleadings, the Labour Court raised the following points:
“(i) Whether the charge sheet issued to the workmen under Chapter XI, Regulation 3, Clause (m) of the Canara Bank Service Code is sustainable? .
(ii) Whether the charge levelled against the workmen concerned is vague and general in nature?
(iii) Whether the domestic enquiry and the findings thereon are valid and proper?”
2. The first point has been held against the union of the employees. As far as the charge being vague and general, the Labour Court, relying on the decision of this Court in Gopalakrishna Prabhu v. Central Bank 1991 (1) KLT 383 held that the very provision is unsustainable and unenforceable and hence, the point was answered in favour of the union. The Labour Court considered the issue as follows:
“In this case also a misconduct is defined as “Any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank”. But it is not specified what are the doings which can be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. So such a vague charge cannot be held as sustainable. If that be so, the very charge issued to the workmen for misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank within the meaning of Chapter XI, Regulation 3, Clause (m) of the Canara Bank Service Code is unsustainable and unenforceable.”
It has to be seen in the factual context of the instant case the charge levelled against the erring workmen is not vague. It is specific. The incident is referred, the involvement is referred and how the alleged misconduct affected the name and reputation of the employer is also referred. On such specifications, it cannot be said that the charge as such is vague. If the charge as extracted above could be duly established, it can never be said that the same is vague and general in nature. The decision referred to by the Labour Court has to be appreciated in the factual background of each case. It would be profitable to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in N.H. Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation AIR 1998 SC 1064 : 1998 (3) SCC 732 : 1998-I-LLJ-1202 wherein it has been held that any action which is detrimental to the interests or prestige of the employer undermines the position and efficient functioning of the organisation in which he is working. The incident took place in a public function organised in connection with the Silver Jubilee Celebrations of the establishment of a branch of the Bank. If the charge levelled against the workmen are proved, it certainly undermines the prestige of the employer and undermines the discipline of the organisation. Therefore, the approach of the Labour Court is wholly unreasonable as far as this issue is concerned.
3. Sri. H.B. Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the union and the workmen submits that even assuming so, the alleged misconduct took place outside the premises of the establishment. True, the alleged incident took place not at the premises of the Bank, but at the premises where a public function organised by the Bank, namely, Town Hall. The fact remains that the alleged misconduct has affected the prestige and discipline of the organization. The question is whether the action is a misconduct and if that be so, the place where it was committed is irrelevant.
4. The next contention of Sri Shenoy is that it is not defined as a misconduct in the Bipartite Settlement. According to him, the alleged conduct should have the impact of entailing loss to the establishment and then alone it could be said as misconduct. That contention cannot be appreciated. It is only in respect of a negligence, the resultant loss becomes relevant. As far as a conduct affecting the name, reputation and discipline of the organisation, there need not necessarily be a proved loss in economic terms.
5. As far as point No. 3 is concerned, the Labour Court found that the enquiry is vitiated on the ground that the enquiry officer himself was the presenting officer. That point has been considered by this Court in the decision in B.P.L India Ltd. v. B.P.L. & P.S.P. Thozhilali Union 1992-I-LLJ-115 (Ker) and it has been held that by the very conduct of the enquiry officer examining the witnesses in the absence of a presenting officer cannot be said to be a factor vitiating the enquiry. Sri. Shenoy submits that the enquiry officer in the instant case did not confine himself to the examination of witnesses- The way he conducted the enquiry left the impression of the enquiry officer becoming the prosecutor. Yet the moot question is what is prejudice caused to the workmen? Even assuming there were some procedural irregularities, unless it is contended and established that the said irregularity has resulted in prejudice to the interest of the workmen in the enquiry, it cannot be said that the enquiry is vitiated. Therefore, on the considerations referred to in the award, it cannot be said that the enquiry is vitiated. It should be established that irregularities in the conduct of the enquiry have resulted in real prejudice to the workmen. Sri. Shenoy submits that contentions were taken before the Tribunal and prejudice was established. However, in the absence of records, it is not possible for this Court to verify the materials regarding this submission.
6. In the light of what is stated above, normally, this Court would have set aside the award and left the matter at that. However, in view of the submissions made by Sri. Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the union and the workmen that they had set up and established a case of prejudice which is not referred to in the award, it is only proper that the matter is considered afresh by the Labour Court.
7. In the result, I set aside Exhibit P4 and remit the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.