THE REGIONAL MANAGER,UNION BANK OF INDIA, UNION BANK BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM Vs. MR. P.K. VENUGOPALAN,KAVITHA, KUNNAKKALA HOUSE, W. KADUNGALLUR, ALUVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a Bank; it is aggrieved by Ext.P20 award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Ernakulam, the second respondent ("the Labour Court"). The first respondent was the petitioner's employee. While he was working as a Head Cashier, on 16.10.1996 the Manager noticed shortage of cash: Rs.42,977/-. When questioned, the employee admitted his lapse in writing and later, on 18.10.1996, paid the amount.

(2.) The Bank, on its part, initiated disciplinary proceedings: it issued Ext.P1 charge sheet and Ext.P2 supplementary charge sheet, later conducted an enquiry, had Ext.P10 enquiry report, and eventually passed Ext.P12 order of punishment. It dismissed the employee from service. Aggrieved, the employee filed an intra-bank appeal but without success. The appellate authority dismissed the employee's appeal through Ext.P13. Eventually, the employee filed Ext.P17 claim statement before the Labour Court, which rendered Ext.P20 award: the order of dismissal was modified to that of discharge with superannuation benefits. Aggrieved, the Bank has filed this writ petition for a certiorari against Ext.P20 order.

(3.) Sri Sadchith P. Kurup, the learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that the Labour Court has accepted the findings of the disciplinary committee in their entirety but has interfered with the order of punishment only on extraneous reasonsthe reasons of sympathy. He has further submitted that, as the employee was a cashier in a commercial Bank, fidelity was of utmost importance, and any errant behaviour would have a telling effect on the confidence of the Bank's clientele. Insisting that the Labour Court's inference is uncalled for, the learned counsel has relied on Govindan A. Vs. State Bank of Travancore, ILR 2016 (4) Kerala 345.