UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. KAMLESH G SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACTG. C.J. Admit. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

(2.) The respondent-workman was dismissed from service of the appellant Nationalised Bank because of the misconduct and using filthy language against superior officer of the Bank in the bank premises during the banking hours. The Central Industrial Tribunal held that misconduct was established. However, the Tribunal further held that punishment of dismissal was disproportionately harsh and amounting to victimisation. The Tribunal also observed that "No doubt the workman hurled on abuse which conveyed very obscene, insulting and bad meaning. But the abuse is so common place that many persons use it by force of habit without either understanding the meaning thereof or without any intention to convey the real meaning of the abuse. It is also pertinent to note that the workman gave that abuse while expressing his righteous indignation at the mistake in the calculations of maturity amounts which he wanted to point out to Shri Manoj Shah". Manoj Shah was Accountant and the workman was clerk-cum-cashier. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the punishment was totally unjustified and stoppage of one increment for a year directing the reinstatement of the respondent would have been adequate punishment and, therefore, the Tribunal quashed the dismissal and directed reinstatement with full back wages subject to the stoppage of one increment for one year.

(3.) The Bank management preferred Special Civil Application No. 2452 of 1989. That petition was admitted and during the pendency of the petition interim relief was granted subject to the compliance with the provisions of Sec. 17-B and for back wages 50% was permitted to be withdrawn and 50% was deposited in this Court which has been invested. The workman has been paid wages under Sec. 17- B for all these years from 1989 to 1996. That amount runs into lacs. The learned single Judge held that the Tribunal had rightly held that the charge of the respondent-employee hurling the abuse on the officiating Branch Manager Shri Manoj Shah was established. However, learned single Judge has held that it was not necessary for the Tribunal to lend any responsibility to the conduct of the respondent-employee by describing his outburst as an expression of righteous indignation. The conduct of the respondent-employee of abusing his superior officer in the office of the Bank deserves to be condemned in no uncertain words. However, the learned single Judge confirmed the order of the Tribunal regarding full back wages. The learned single Judge has considered the question of backwages only on the point of period of gainful employment. The argument of the Bank was that the employee has not led any evidence or not entered the witness box to show that he was not gainfully employed. That would result only to the period during the date of dismissal till the date of the award of the Tribunal. As far as the period after the interim order of this Court and till disposal of the Special Civil Application, wages have been paid under Sec. 17-B at the rate of last drawn salary and the question is still open about the difference between the last drawn salary and the salary payable on reinstatement.