CANARA BANK Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent was a Sub Staff in the Canara Bank in its Tripunithura branch. One Radhakrishnan, who was an account holder of the bank alleged that ' - on 17.4.1984, while he was returning from his office, the third respondent assaulted him at about 4.30 p.m. while near Eroor Puthiya road bus stop and that in the incident of assault he also lost his savings bank account pass book, a sum of Rs. 400/- and some important keys. The third respondent was consequently arrested on 19.4.1984 based on Crime No. 70 of 1984 registered on the basis of the F.I. statement given by Radhakrishnan. The matter was reported to the Employer / the petitioner bank. He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 2.5.1984. The matter was subsequently patched up with the complainant and consequently the third respondent was not included as an accused in the charge sheet laid by the police. However, the other participants in the occurrence were charge sheeted and in due course the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam allowed the application for compounding the offence in the complaint filed before him and acquitted all the accused under S.320(8) of the Cr. P.C. In the meantime disciplinary action had been initiated against the third respondent. As per Ext. p5 order dt. . 6.7.1984 the suspension was revoked and the third respondent was directed to report for duty at the Kothamangalam branch. He refused to do so and filed O.P, No. 6167 of 1984 before this Court. Ultimately the Original Petition was disposed of on 17.7.1984 holding that it is for the petitioner (present third respondent) to decide whether he should opt to obey the transfer order or to continue under suspension. The original petition was dismissed with the said observation. Thereafter he joined duty at Kothamangalam on 11.6.1985. The disciplinary proceedings reached its logical end and it was finally ordered as per Ext. P6 that punishment of 'warning' as per Chapter XI Regulation.4 Clause (a) of the Canara Bank Service Code be imposed on the third respondent. It was further directed that the period of suspension from 2.5.1984 to 11.6.1985 shall not be treated as period spent on duty and hence would not be reckoned for any purpose whatsoever. The aforesaid punishment was taken up by the Union before the Central Labour Court. The question referred to was the following;

(2.) In Ext. P3 award passed by the said Court, which is impugned herein, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the domestic enquiry held against the third respondent and the findings entered by the Enquiry Officer. They were held as legal and valid. However, after entering the said finding the Labour Court proceeded to consider the validity of the punishment and it was ultimately held that the punishment of warning was proper. It was further held that the punishment of treating the period of suspension from 2.5.84 to 11.6.85 as not spent on duty is set aside. The Management was directed to treat the said period as period spent on duty and to pay full wages to the third respondent for the said period. It is the last of these directions i.e., to treat the period as spent on duty and to pay full wages, that is impugned in the Original Petition.

(3.) Mr. M.C. Sen, who appeared for the petitioner, submitted that Ext. P3 award suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to be corrected. It was further submitted that the impact of Ext. P3 would be that the third respondent would not be affected in any manner in so far as what is left is only a warning and that the Labour Court erect in interfering with the discretion available to the Management with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension should be treated.