Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 16 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Punjab National Bank (Appellant) vs. Nipul Chandra Das & Anr. (Respondents).
  • Civil Appeal No.: 12893/2026 @ SLP (C) No. 17918/2026.
  • Nature of dispute: Industrial dispute arising from the dismissal of a class‑IV bank employee (the workman) for alleged misconduct.
  • Procedural history:
  • The workman was served a charge sheet dated 05.01.2017 and a domestic inquiry was held, culminating in a dismissal order dated 19.06.2017 (digitally signed by Chetan Arora).
  • The workman raised an industrial dispute; the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court, Guwahati (Reference Case No. 03/2019).
  • The Tribunal framed issues, including the fairness of the domestic inquiry, and ultimately declared the dismissal “bad in law,” ordering reinstatement with full back‑wages. The award was dated 20.11.2019.
  • PNB filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court. The Single Judge, by order dated 16.10.2025, set aside the Tribunal award, remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh evidence, directed appearance on 01.12.2025, and ordered the record to be remitted.
  • The workman appealed intra‑court; the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court allowed the appeal, held that the employer had failed to produce records or cross‑examine the workman, and restored the Tribunal award.
  • PNB appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the Division Bench’s reversal.
  • Key contentions:
  • Appellant (PNB) argued that once the Tribunal framed the issue of the domestic inquiry’s fairness, it should have been decided preliminarily; if found improper, the employer must be given an opportunity to prove the charges, which did not happen.
  • Respondent (Workman) contended that the charges were mala fide, the employer produced no substantive evidence, and the Tribunal was justified in reinstating him.
  • Observations by the Supreme Court:
  • The statement of claim shows that a charge sheet was served, a domestic inquiry was conducted, and a personal hearing was afforded on 16.06.2017 at the bank’s Head Office, Kolkata.
  • Even assuming the inquiry was vitiated, the Tribunal should have allowed the employer to lead evidence to justify the dismissal.
  • The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that where an inquiry is vitiated, the employer must be given a chance to justify the action before the Tribunal.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Gauhati High Court Division Bench order, and restored the Single Judge’s order dated 16.10.2025.
  • Consequently, the Tribunal award remains quashed, and the matter is to be reheard by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑cum‑Labour Court, Guwahati, with both parties given the opportunity to adduce evidence.
  • All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Topics: Industrial Dispute, Banking Employment