Employee’s Act Of Bringing Policemen In Bank’s Office To Interrogate Manager Complaining About Transfer Constitutes Misconduct: Bombay High Court
The Bench noted that the employee brought policemen to interrogate Bank officer over routine transfer ought to have adopted known internal channels; Labour Court completely misread the charge.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that an employee who approaches police with a grievance against her transfer and brings policemen to the employer's premises to interrogate a Bank manager commits misconduct, regardless of whether any violence, abusive language, or altercation follows.
While setting aside concurrent orders of the First Labour Court, Thane, and the Maharashtra Industrial Court, held that the Enquiry Officer's findings were neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence, and that the Labour Court had completely misread the charge.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “The very act of the Respondent approaching police and complaining about her transfer to Vashi Branch constitutes misconduct. If the Respondent was aggrieved by her transfer to Vashi Branch, she ought to have adopted the known channels or remedies by making representations to Bank officials. She should not have approached police complaining about her transfer. In the present case, the Respondent did not stop at approaching police, but she brought two policemen to the Branch alleging that she was being harassed. The policemen were brought for interrogating the bank officer about the exact reason for her transfer. Such a conduct on the part of the Respondent undoubtedly constitutes misconduct. The Labour Court has however, completely misread charge No.1 to mean as if the charge was with regard to failure to obey the transfer order”.
Advocate Rita K. Joshi appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Ravindra B. Nair appeared for the respondent.
The respondent, a clerk with Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank, was transferred from its Accounts Department to the Vashi Branch by order dated May 16, 2012. After being relieved on May 17, 2012, she brought two police personnel to the Bank's HRM Department and informed them that Manager H.D. Bhat had transferred her to harass her.
The policemen interrogated Mr. Bhat, who satisfied them that the transfer was routine, following which they left. A charge-sheet dated April 16, 2013 alleged misconduct on two counts: bringing police to intimidate a superior officer, and making false and vexatious complaints to multiple external authorities including the Banking Ombudsman, the Reserve Bank of India, the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, and the Chief Minister.
The Enquiry Officer held both charges proved, and the Bank dismissed the respondent on January 28, 2015. The Labour Court, deciding preliminary issues, held the enquiry fair but the Enquiry Officer's findings perverse. The Industrial Court dismissed the Bank's revision. The Bank approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Court noted that the Labour Court's error lay in treating the charge as one of disobeying the transfer order and then acquitting the respondent on the ground that she had reported to the Vashi Branch on May 18, 2012, a finding the High Court termed "perverse to the core", since the charge never alleged refusal to obey the transfer order.
“Thus, absence of ‘violence’ or ‘hot discussion’ or use of ‘abusive language’ by police with Mr. Bhat is taken into consideration by the Labour Court for concluding that the act of the Respondent did not amount to misconduct. These findings are again perverse to the core. The Bank never alleged misconduct of violence, hot discussion or abusive language. The allegation against the Respondent was plain and simple. The act of the Respondent in bringing policemen to Bank’s office to question her transfer is viewed as misconduct by the Bank and therefore the simple issue before the Labour Court was whether approaching police with grievance of transfer and bringing policemen to Bank’s office and subjecting officer to interrogation amounted to misconduct or not. Instead of concentrating on this aspect, the Labour Court completely misdirected itself and has erroneously given clean cheat to the Respondent only on account of absence of violence and abusive language”, the Bench noted.
On the second charge, the Court distinguished permissible internal grievance-airing from filing complaints before external authorities about the Bank's functioning, holding that compelling an employer to respond to regulatory and government bodies could itself constitute misconduct, the degree whereof would be determined at the final stage.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the orders of the Labour Court dated September 01, 2023 and the Industrial Court dated June 11, 2024, declared the Enquiry Officer's findings not perverse, save the allegation of direct misbehaviour with Mr. Bhat, which was found unproved, and remitted the matter to the Labour Court to decide the proportionality of the dismissal order afresh within six months.
Cause Title: Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Smita Virendra Patil (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:24526)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Rita K. Joshi, Ashok D. Shetty and Bushra Moughal, Advocates.
Respondent: Ravindra B. Nair, Advocate.