UMABAI TORAVI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER (P)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dtd. 14/5/2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore (for short, "CGIT"), rejecting the reference made at the instance of the petitioner herein assailing the order of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent against her.

(2.) The petitioner states that she was appointed by respondent/Bank as Clerk on 4/3/1985 and posted to work at Navalagund Branch, Dharwad District. Her husband was an employee of Central Government in the Department of Excise and he was posted at Ballari. Considering the same, acceding to the request of petitioner, respondent/Bank transferred her to Ballari Branch so that she could live with her husband. Subsequently, her husband was transferred to Hubballi in the year 1991, but the petitioner was not transferred to Hubballi Branch of respondent/Bank. It is further stated that the petitioner was suffering from Gynecological disorders and therefore, she could not attend to her duties and on account of the same, the respondent/Bank terminated her services on 20/6/1993. The petitioner challenged the said order in WP No.45802/1999 and this Court allowed the same by order dtd. 10/4/2000 and directed reinstatement of the petitioner without continuity of service. There was further direction in the said order that she was not entitled to consequential benefits and her period of absence from 11/6/1990 to 20/6/1993 i.e. for a period of 1091 days and from 20/6/1993 upto the date of reinstatement would not count for any other benefits except terminal benefits. Immediately on reinstatement, the petitioner reported to duty at Ballari Royal Circle Branch on 29/12/2000 and she requested posting at Bangalore as her husband was working there. It is further stated that the petitioner fell ill after reporting for duties and therefore, she applied for leave and her leave application was not considered in accordance with Service Rules. She was admitted to the hospital and she had undergone surgery and was discharged on 9/4/2001. Thereafter, articles of charges were issued to the petitioner and domestic enquiry was instituted against her. The respondent/Bank did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to put-forward her defence and finally, order of compulsory retirement was passed on 17/7/2002. She submitted a claim statement before the learned CGIT, Bangalore. The respondent filed its statement of objections. After hearing, the learned CGIT passed the order on 21/12/2005 holding that the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner was not fair and proper and case was posted for enquiry. After examining the witnesses and hearing the rival parties, the impugned order was passed by the learned CGIT rejecting the reference.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though at an earlier stage of the proceedings, the learned CGIT held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, it did not hold regular enquiry and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned CGIT is illegal. He further contended that inspite of the petitioner filing an application for production of leave application, the respondent/Bank did not produce the same before the learned CGIT. He also contended that the petitioner could not attend to duty on account of ill- health. She was entitled to grant of leave under the Service Rules and in spite of the same, the order of compulsory retirement was passed which was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, he contended that the order of the learned CGIT is arbitrary and illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.