G PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Cashier in the 2nd respondent co-operative bank. On two charges of misconducts, one of misappropriation of money and the other of misleading the bank in loan applications submitted by four borrowers by stating therein that they are not previous defaulters in repayment of loans, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. A domestic enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was found guilty of the misconducts alleged against him. A punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, as I.D.No.84/2002. In the I.D., the petitioner raised a specific contention that the enquiry is vitiated for non-granting the petitioner an opportunity to adduce documentary evidence after the evidence of the management was over. The Tribunal found that the said objection raised by the petitioner is sustainable, but instead of setting aside the enquiry on that ground, the Tribunal gave the petitioner an opportunity to prove those documents in the I.D. Accordingly, the petitioner got the documents marked as Exts.W1 and W2. Thereupon, the based on the evidence available including the documents marked on the side of the workman in the I.D., the Tribunal considered the question as to whether the evidence supports the findings of guilt on the petitioner. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the charges were not proved. But on the ground that the workman was inefficient and indifferent in handling cash, the Tribunal interfered with the punishment imposed on the workman and directed re- employment of the workman as Junior Clerk without any benefit for the period from the date of dismissal to the date of reemployment. It was also directed that if it is not possible for any reason whatsoever to comply with the said directions, the management shall be free to retrench the service of the workman with effect from the date of the award by paying him retrenchment compensation for service till the date of the award. Ext.P3 is the award passed by the Tribunal. The petitioner is challenging that award. Although the petitioner raised a contention that after having found that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to adduce evidence, the enquiry should have been set aside, the same was not seriously argued before me. Mainly the challenge is against the imposition of punishment after having found the workman not guilty of the charges framed by the management against him. The argument is based on the fact that after having found the petitioner not guilty of the two misconducts alleged against him, the petitioner could not have been imposed with any punishment whatsoever as done by the Tribunal for some other misconducts, for which no disciplinary action was taken against him. For that reason, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P3 award is unsustainable.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent seeking to sustain Ext.P3 award.