BRANCH MANAGER Vs. HASANBHAI NAZBUDDIN VANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the award dated 26th May, 2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.2, Central, Rajkot in Reference (ITC) No.14/98.

(2.) The respondent was employed as a Peon with the petitioner-Bank. On 29.7.87, a charge-sheet came to be issued against the respondent making several allegations of financial irregularities and misappropriation of bank's fund. As many as 11 charges were levelled against the respondent. Upon conclusion of the departmental inquiry, after giving full opportunity to the respondent to meet with the charges, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. He concluded that charges No.2, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 were proved. He, however, held that remaining charges, viz. charges No.1, 3, 6, 7 & 11 were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, however, tentatively came to the conclusion that all the charges except charges No.1 and 11 are proved. To that extent, he disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. This was conveyed to the respondent in the show cause notice dated 8.9.88. He proposed punishment of terminating the service from the Bank's service. Respondent replied to the show cause notice and made a representation on 21.11.88. The Disciplinary Authority eventually passed the penal order on 13th January 1989 terminating the services of the respondent without any notice. The Disciplinary Authority concluded that all charges except charges No.1 and 11 are proved. After this order was passed in January 1989, respondent took no further steps to challenge the same. Nine years after passing of the order, he raised an industrial dispute. The dispute was referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. Before the Industrial Tribunal, significantly the responded passed a purshis on 26th April 2004, contents of which translated into English read as follows:- I the undersigned respectfully submit that the opponent has conducted a departmental inquiry against the applicant and proceedings thereof have also been produced. I am not challenging the legality of the departmental inquiry and seek to confine my submissions only with respect to the penalty imposed upon me being harsh for which purpose this purshis is given.

(3.) The Industrial Tribunal by its impugned award dated 26.5.04 allowed the reference partially. The respondent was directed to be reinstated in service after quashing the termination order dated 13.1.89 and the intervening period was directed to be treated as continuous for service purposes. Penalty of withholding of three increments with future effect was provided for. Regarding backwages, it was stated that from 13.1.89 to 31.12.94, there will be no direction for payment of backwages. After 1.1.95, the workman should be paid 50 per cent of the wages otherwise due and payable to him.