KOTTARAKARA CO OP URBAN BANK LTD Vs. SREENIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner management, seeks to quash Ext. P6 award 'in O.P.10678/87 ordering reinstatement of respondent workman, while the workman challenges the same award, denying backwages on reinstatement, in O.P.860/88.

(2.) The workman a Junior Clerk in a bank, was placed under suspension on a charge of falsification of accounts. Ext. P1 memo of charges was issued to him. His explanation Ext. P2 was considered and on the basis of Ext. P3 report he was dismissed from service. Upon that, an industrial dispute was raised and eventually Ext. P6 award (O.P.10678/87) was made. The management, would submit that there was no justification in ordering reinstatement, though without backwages, after finding 'grave charges'. The workman on the contrary, would urge that when reinstatement was ordered, backwages too, should have been ordered.

(3.) It is noticed in Para.5 of the award, that the workman did not challenge the enquiry or the findings on fact, and consideration was limited to the question of punishment. In Para.9 of the award the labour court found that the workman was guilty of "grave misconduct". The Labour Court noticed the acts of misconduct, which include disobedience of lawful directions of the Secretary, repetition of similar acts even after warnings and punishments; and making several interpolation in books of accounts, -- the charge in the instant case. Despite these, the Labour Court said: