REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. DEVJIBHAI M. PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner bank, and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner bank is aggrieved by an award dated 12.12.2005 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Industrial Dispute (Reference CGITA) No.926 of 2004 (Old (ITC) No.1 of 1990 whereby the learned Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the petitioner bank against the respondent and directed the petitioner bank to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and to pay 25% backwages.

(3.) So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that upon being dismissed from service on the ground that the allegations and charge levelled against him vide charge sheet dated 4.9.1986 and additional charge sheet dated 19.1.1987 are proved in the domestic inquiry, the respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the learned Tribunal. In the statement of claim filed by the respondent, he claimed that at the relevant time, he was working as godown keeper at the petitioner's bank's Vaniyavadi Branch, Rajkot. He claimed that he was visited with a charge sheet dated 4.9.1986 and subsequently, another / additional charge sheet dated 19.1.1987 was served and in pursuance of the said charge sheets, domestic inquiry was conducted. He also alleged that upon conclusion of the domestic inquiry and after inviting his explanation as to the proposed penalty and after inviting his response with regard to the findings of the inquiry officer passed order dated 31.5.1988 and discharged him from the service of the bank. He also claimed that an appeal before the departmental appellate authority failed. The respondent challenged the petitioner's action before the learned Tribunal. The petitioner bank opposed the reference and the respondent's claim. The bank claimed that the charge and allegations against the respondent including the charge of misappropriation of amount of bank's customers and of engaging in business while in service with the bank are proved and according to the applicable rules, the said allegations and charge amount to major misconduct. Therefore, the service of the respondent was terminated. The bank relied on the proceedings of the domestic inquiry and the report submitted by the inquiry officer.