FEDERAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. FEDERAL BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A clerk employed in the first respondent bank, Sri. V. kunjappan, by name, was dismissed from service for a misconduct proved in the enquiry. Appellant Trade union took up the issue and raised an industrial dispute regarding the dismissal of his service. The matter was referred to Central Government Labour Court. The allegation against Sri. V. Kunjappan was that he was transferred from Indoor Branch of the Bank to Thannithode Branch as per the transfer order of the bank dated June 24, 1992 and subsequently from Thannithode Branch to Agra Branch as per the transfer order of the Bank dated September 26, 1992. Accordingly, he joined at Thannithode Branch on August 24, 1992 and Agra Branch on October 19, 1992. He prepared T.A. bills for both journeys from Indoor to Thannithode and from Thannithode to Agra. The T.A. bill; included second class A/C train fare for himself, his wife and his son, but, later, it came to notice that his son was studying at Indoor itself and, therefore, along with him his wife and son did not travel from indoor to Thannithode and from. Thannithode to Agra. Thus, he falsified the documents and he obtained transfer expenses for his wife and son without incurring the same. The above misconducts were proved in the enquiry and he was dismissed from service with effect from February 14, 1996. His appeal was also rejected by the appellate authority and thereafter the Union took up the case.

(2.) The only dispute is regarding the proportionality of the punishment. It was contended that punishment of dismissal is very harsh. Sri. Kunjappan had a long number of years of unblemished service of more than two and a half decades in the bank and this was the first misconduct and a lenient view should be taken. It was further submitted that the misconduct committed by him was not relating to dealing with the customers and considering the long past service and nature of misconduct coupled with his position of employment (as a clerk), dismissal of service should not have been inflicted. According to the Union, punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. The Labour Court considered this aspect. At the time of dismissal, he was aged only 49. He joined the service of the bank in the year 1967 and had continuous service till January 5, 1994, the date of dismissal. The union prayed for reinstatement with full back wages. The Labour Court in Exhibit P-3 award found that though misconduct is proved, punishment of dismissal was totally disproportionate. For granting relief, Labour Court was of the opinion that denial of back wages for five years (which will be huge sum) is sufficient punishment considering the gravity of the misconduct. Hence, the Labour Court awarded as follows:

(3.) The Management challenged the above award and the learned single Judge held that the Labour Court went wrong in interfering with the punishment imposed by the management as the charges proved against the workman were serious to warrant punishment of dismissal from service. Hence the award was set aside by the learned single Judge.