REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P1 Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam, ordering reinstatement of the concerned workman, (who was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement by the Management) with continuity in service and all attendant benefits, is under challenge in this writ petition filed at the instance of the Management Bank.

(2.) The petitioner Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent workman by placing him under suspension w.e.f. 08/08/2001, pending enquiry, in respect of the complaint received from a lady cashier and two other employees of the Bank in connection with the misconduct committed by the worker on 01/08/2001. The basis for the complaint was that the workman, who was employed as attender in the Cash Department of the Bank at its Fort Branch, Thiruvananthapuram was not co - operating with the work in the Department, by not obeying the instructions of the Cashier in assisting for counting and bundling the 'Notes', when the lady cashier had to seek the assistance of another lady attender. This was to the chagrin of the workman, who turned against the cashier by name K. S. Geetha Devi and abused her in filthy, obscene and sexually coloured words. It was pursuant to the complaint preferred by the lady cashier, that the workman was suspended from the service as mentioned above.

(3.) The disciplinary action initiated by the Management against the workman refers to the misconduct in the matter of sexual harassment towards the lady cashier K. S. Geetha Devi and also for doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, coming within the purview of XIX.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement. The workman was served with the charge - sheet and a domestic enquiry was conducted giving opportunity to prove innocence. Evidence was adduced, both oral and documentary, in the enquiry and on conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the delinquent employee guilty of the charges levelled against him, based on which, the petitioner Management proposed the punishment of 'dismissal' from service. However, after considering the explanation of the employee, taking a lenient view, the proposed punishment of 'dismissal' was converted as 'compulsory retirement from service, which was imposed accordingly. The employee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who considered the entire matter and rejected the appeal confirming the punishment awarded. This gave rise to the industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the second respondent.