B. NARAPPA ALIAS NAGENDRA Vs. PRAGATI GRAMEENA BANK (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TUNGABHADRA GRAMINA BANK), BALLARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. B. Narappa alias Nagendra, the appellant has challenged the legality of the order dated 3-2-2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 60640 of 2012, whereas, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the Pragati Gramina Bank, and had modified the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal on 6-2-2008. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge had directed that the appellant would be entitled to a payment of a lump sum compensation of Rs. 6,00,000.00 but would neither be entitled to a reinstatement, nor to continuity of service, as ordered by the learned Industrial Tribunal.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are, that the appellant had joined the Pragati Grameena Bank as a Junior Clerk. During the course of his service on 17-1-1986 he was served with a charge-sheet. Subsequently, an ex park enquiry was held. After the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, by order dated 15-7-1987, the appellant was dismissed from service. Repeatedly appellant tried to convince the respondent-Bank that the order of dismissal should be withdrawn and he should be reinstated. Repeatedly the Bank assured him that his case would be considered for reinstatement, if he were acquitted in the criminal case being faced by him. By order dated 9-8-1999 the Criminal Court acquitted the appellant. Therefore, on 27-9-1999 the appellant submitted a representation to the respondent-Bank again requesting for reinstatement. But the said representation did not elicit any reaction from the respondent-Bank. Consequently, the appellant also issued a legal notice through his Lawyer to the respondent-Bank. Since even the legal notice did not elicit any reaction, eventually on 9-7-2004 he filed a petition before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and Conciliation Officer, Bellary. Since the conciliation proceedings failed, an industrial dispute was filed and referred to the learned Tribunal on 22-12-2004.

(3.) The learned Tribunal dealt with the preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the appellant was fair and proper? It concluded that the enquiry was neither fair, nor proper, as there was no evidence to show that the notice issued by the respondent-Bank was served upon the appellant. But keeping in mind the delay in referring the industrial dispute, by award dated 9-8-2011 the learned Tribunal directed that the appellant be reinstated with continuity of service, but shall not be entitled to any back wages.