In Brief
A bank manager dismissed in 1985 for unauthorized advances challenged his dismissal four years later, arguing the disciplinary inquiry violated his right to legal representation by a union official. The High Court quashed the proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the Service Code limited representation rights to the employer bank's own union, not external unions. More critically, the Court found the manager's four-year silence before appealing and nine-year inaction constituted acquiescence barring relief. Even where procedures were technically violated, proof of actual prejudice is required; here, the charges were substantively proved and uncontroverted. Courts may refuse relief when granting it would prejudice the employer and undermine administrative finality. The dismissal was upheld and dues paid to the manager were ordered returned.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.