SYNDICATE BANK Vs. SYNDICATE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION

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, Thiruvanathapuram 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 Management Bank filed reply statement, controverting the averments in the claim statement and seeking to justify the course and procedure pursued by them. It was specifically contended that the domestic enquiry was conducted strictly adhering to all the known principles of natural justice and that absolutely no prejudice whatsoever was caused to the employee at any point of time. It was also stated that there was no obscurity in the charge sheet at all and that the factual point, on which the enquiry was being conducted, was clearly given in the order of suspension and also in the charge sheet. It was further stated that the punishment of ?compulsory retirement? from service was imposed, taking a lenient view, by changing the proposed punishment of ?dismissal? from service and that the same can never be called as disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. THE punishment was awarded, also taking note of the previous misconducts committed by the employee and also the punishment awarded to him at different points of time.