State Bank of Travancore, Zonal Office, Kozhicode v. Labour Court, Kozhikode; Balakrishnan and Sangeetha

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC** **TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930** **WP(C).No. 28815 of 2006(E)** **---------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **--------------** **STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.25, KOZHIKODE-673 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------** ## **1. LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE.** ## **2. A. BALAKRISHNAN,** **SANGEETHA, AMBALAPADY, THULLISSERY ROAD, WANDOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 328.** **ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM FOR R2** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WPC NO.28815/06** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF CHARGESHEET DATED 19.5.2001 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF CHARGESHEET DATED 12.06.2001 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 6.4.2002 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED 8.7.2002 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 13.9.2005 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 18.11.2005 IN I.D.(C) NO.1/04 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, J.** ## **=============== W.P.(C) NO. 28815 OF 2006 E ====================** ## **Dated this the 30[th] day of September, 2008** ## **J U D G M E N T** The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, the award passed by the 1[st] respondent in ID No.1/04. The issue that was referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act was the justifiability and correctness of the action of the petitioner in dismissing one Sri.Balakrishnan from the service of the Bank. 2. It is stated that while the workmen was a clerk cum cashier at the Manjeri Branch of the petitioner Bank, he was found to have committed various misconducts. Initially, he was issued Ext.P1 memo of charges containing 6 charges, which includes fraudulent withdrawal of money from account, forgery of signature, destruction of withdrawal forms and misappropriation of funds. It was alleged that by his aforesaid conduct, he had committed misconducts as defined in Clause 19.5(d) of the First Bipartite Settlement of 1966 and rendered himself liable for punishment under Clause 19.6 thereof. Again he was issued Ext.P2 charge sheet containing allegation of fraudulent withdrawal of amount from the account of a customer and destruction of evidence attracting the aforesaid **WPC 28815/06** **:2 :** misconducts and punishment. 3. It is stated that the workmen filed his explanations and finally an enquiry was held by an Enquiry Officer, who found the workmen guilty of all the misconducts that were alleged against him. Accordingly,the workmen who was already placed under suspension following the commission of the misconducts was dismissed from the Bank by Ext.P4 order dated 8/7/2002. 4. Invoking his right under Section 2 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, an individual dispute was raised by the workmen himself. Conciliation having failed, the appropriate Government referred the aforesaid dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Calicut. The dispute was numbered as ID 1/04. Pleadings were filed and parties were heard and Labour Court passed Ext.P5 preliminary order. In so far as enquiry is concerned, it has been held to be properly held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and was upheld. Coming to the findings of the enquiry officer, the Labour Court held that except charges 4 and 8, all the remaining charges were proved against the workmen. 5. Thereafter, the parties were heard on the question of punishment in exercise of the powers under Section 11 A of the Industrial **WPC 28815/06** **:3 :** Disputes Act. Finally the Labour Court passed Ext.P6 award, holding punishment to be shockingly disproportionate and setting aside the order dismissing workmen from service. It was directed that in lieu thereof, the workmen shall be reinstated and that his backwages and seniority shall be forfeited as punishment. It is aggrieved by this award the management has filed this writ petition. 6. In this writ petition, all that this Court need examine is whether the Labour Court has exceeded its power under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act in interfering with the punishment that has been imposed by the management. A reading of Ext.P6 award shows that the justifications given by the Labour Court are that it was impossible to have committed the fraud without the active or passive connivance or knowledge of co- workers, that there is no evidence to show that the Bank has suffered any monitory loss on account of the misdeeds committed by the worker as he had repaid the amounts and that the workmen had long unblemished service of more than two decades. As already noticed, all the charges contained in Exts. P1 and P2 except charges 4 and 8, have been held to be proved in Ext.P5 preliminary order passed by the Labour Court. These charges include withdrawal of amount from the deposits maintained **WPC 28815/06** **:4 :** by the customers of the Bank misusing the workmen's official capacity as cashier cum clerk in the petitioner Bank. 7. In view of the settled legal position that a Bank employee is bound to show utmost loyalty and faith and even one proved misconduct will justify his dismissal from service. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Apex court in **Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan (** 1998(4) SCC 310), **Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd) and others v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and others (** 2000(7) SCC 517), State Bank of India and another v. Bela Bagchi and others (2005(7) SCC 435) and **Syndicate Bank and others v. Venkatesh Guru Rao Kurati (** 2006(3) SCC 150) & **Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager, Central Bank of India and others v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (** 1996(2) LLJ 379). 8. Recently the Apex Court has in **State Bank of India and Others v. S.N.Goyal** {(2008) 8 SCC 92} has held that the relationship between a banker and customer is one of trust and that the employees of the Bank are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of the customers/borrowers of the Bank. It was also **WPC 28815/06** **:5 :** held that even temporary misappropriation of such money is a serious misconduct warranting removal of the employee concerned from the service of the Bank. Proceeding further in so far as the interference with the punishment is concerned, it has held that where an enquiry was found to be fair and proper and finding of guilt in the enquiry in respect of a serious charge was held to be valid, in the absence of any other valid ground, the punishment imposed by the management should not be interfered. 9. If that be the legal position, the justification offered by the Labour court for holding the punishment to be shockingly disproportionate are totally unacceptable. Even it is assumed for the sake of argument that it was impossible for the workmen to have committed the misconduct without the connivance of others, that does not in any manner dilute the gravity of the misconducts committed by the workmen. The fact that the workmen has repaid the amounts to the Bank and that therefore the Bank has not suffered any loss in the process is also irrelevant. The unblemished services rendered by the workmen is yet another irrelevant consideration. 10. The misconducts found to have been committed by the **WPC 28815/06** **:6 :** workmen deserves appropriate punishment and interference by the Labour Court was totally unjustifiable. In my view by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the punishment imposed by the management was shockingly disproportionate as held by the Labour Court. 11. In the result, Ext.P6 to the extent the Labour Court has set aside the punishment of dismissal imposed by the management is liable to be set aside and I do so. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE** Rp