SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD Vs. V G KRISHNAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The management in an Industrial dispute is the appellant before us. They are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 17996/1997 by which the learned single Judge declined to interfere with Exhibit P-19 award of the Central Government Labour Court, Ernakulam, by which the Labour Court interfered with the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the management on the 1st respondent workman for proved misconduct and directing reinstatement without back wages imposing on him the punishment of suspension for a period of one year from the date of the order of dismissal.

(2.) The appellant-management is a Scheduled Bank. The 1st respondent-workman was a clerk in the bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on six charges of misconduct. Having him found guilty in respect of four charges, in a domestic enquiry conducted into the charges of misconduct, the management imposed on the 1st respondent the punishment of dismissal from service. The 1st respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Central Government Labour Court, Ernakulam which was adjudicated as I.D. No. 33/1995. By Exhibit P-19 award, the Labour Court found that the enquiry was valid and proper and charge Nos. 2 to 4 have been proved. However, the Labour Court interfered with the punishment and instead of dismissal from service the punishment of suspension for a period of one year from the date of order of dismissal was imposed, but without back wages for the period during which he was kept out of service. Accordingly, the management was directed to take him back in service with effect from February 1, 1997. The appellant management challenged the award in the above original petition. By the impugned judgment the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the award holding that the fact that in the opinion of this Court a more stringent punishment could have been imposed is not a ground to interfere with the punishment imposed by the competent authority. The said judgment is under challenge in this writ appeal.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as that of the 1st respondent workman in detail. The question to be considered in this case is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the management in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. ("I.D. Act")