SYNDICATE BANK Vs. SURESH KUMAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition assails the award dated 17.09.2009 passed by the learned Labour Court No. 1, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi in I.D. No. 47/2004. Under the impugned award, the Labour Court has held the petitioner's action of reducing the respondent's basic pay by two stages in the applicable pay scale for a period of two years, by way of punishment for his misconduct, as justified. However, the Labour Court directed the petitioner to fix the respondent's basic pay, upon expiry of the period of penalty,at Rs. 8980/-along with FPP of Rs. 421/- and PQP of Rs. 121/- w.e.f. 29.07.2003,by granting him two increments for the period of his punishmentin accordance with the circular dated 16.03.2004.The petitioner was also directed to fix the basic pay of the respondent at Rs.8980/- along with FPP of Rs. 421 and an enhanced PQP of Rs. 242/- w.e.f. 29.07.2004.

(2.) The respondent workman, while posted as a clerk in the petitioner Bank's Farukh Nagar Branch, was placed under suspension on 29.07.1999 for misbehaving with a senior officer. Consequently, the respondent was served with a chargesheet dated 18.08.1999 for gross misconduct, wilful damage or attempt to cause damage to the petitioner's property and for performing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. Subsequent thereto, the respondent was also served with the notice of enquiry dated 12.07.2000. In his reply dated 24.07.2000 to this notice, the respondent expressed his remorse for his conduct and undertook to behave appropriately in the future, provided that he was treated with leniency in the matter by permitting him to resume duties and have his case considered under Clause 19.12(e) of the Bipartite Settlement. Accordingly, on 29.07.2000,the Disciplinary Authority awarded him the punishment of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of two years for each count of misconduct under clauses 19.5(c), 19.5(d) and 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement, which penalties were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that the respondent's period of suspension would be excluded while computing his years of service, except for the purpose of terminal benefits, and no salary will be paid to him during this time, with the exception of the subsistence allowance already being paid to him.The respondent unsuccessfully challenged the punishment awarded to him before the Appellate Authority, and thereafter raised an industrial dispute on the ground that in the show cause notice served to him, the petitioner had never mentioned that it proposed to withhold his increment for the suspension period. The petitioner's dispute was referred to the Labour Court 03.09.2004 on the following terms:

(3.) Before the Labour Court, the respondent contended that in the show cause notice dated 25.07.2000, the petitioner had not mentioned that it also proposed to withhold his increments during the period of his suspension, by way of punishment. As regards his basic pay, the respondent contended that he was receiving Rs.8600/- as basic pay prior to his suspension, which was reduced by two stages and brought down to Rs.7540/-w.e.f. 03.08.2000 when his punishment was effected. He contended that, however, once the period of punishment had ended w.e.f. 29.07.2002, his basic pay could not be restored to Rs.8600/- by bypassing the increment he would have been entitled to during the period of suspension, i.e. January 2000, but instead ought to have been restored to Rs. 8980/- [Rs. 8600+ Rs. 380 (increment for January 2000)]. He contended that the Bipartite Settlement, which governs his conditions of service in the petitioner Bank, does not provide for disallowing increments which are rightly accruing to a workman and that, therefore, the petitioner's decision to forego his increment was completely arbitrary and violative of its own prevailing policies. On the other hand, the petitioner opposed the respondent's claim by stating that in the light of his egregious conduct involving the assault and verbal abuse of a senior officer, the Disciplinary Authority had rightly directed that increment for the period of suspension be withheld from the respondent. Vide the impugned Award, the Labour Court held as under: