JIVABHAI SAVABHAI PARMAR Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and validity of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, dated 29.6.2010 insofar as non?granting of 100% back wages.

(2.) The premise on which the petitioner has submitted the petition is that he was working as a Peon in the respondent bank. One of the customers of respondent bank, namely, Shri Ramanbhai Dhulabhai Patel filed the FIR on 9.12.1997 in which it has been mentioned that he had received the cheque book from respondent bank but, one cheque was missing and somebody had stolen the cheque. It has further been asserted in the complaint that somebody had also opened the account and withdrawn the money. On the basis of such allegation, even a departmental inquiry against the petitioner was initiated and though there was no allegations against the petitioner by the original complainant, the respondent bank proceeded with and served the charge?sheet on 26.7.1989 to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that Shri Umakant Desai, the Inquiry Officer, who was the officer of the respondent bank, without considering any material, had held the petitioner guilty of the misconduct and an order of dismissal came to be passed on 26.8.1991 by the respondent ? competent authority. It is further the case of the petitioner that charge?sheet which has been filed was culminated into a Criminal Case No.877 of 2002 before the learned JMFC, Vijapur for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 406, 408, 420, 477A, 468 and 34 of the IPC. However, subsequently, the learned JMFC,Vijapur had passed the order of acquittal in favour of the petitioner on 6.3.2007. This material aspect, according to the petitioner, has not been properly appreciated by the Industrial Tribunal and the reference was partly allowed, whereby the Industrial Tribunal has denied the back wages to the extent of 75% and merely granted reinstatement with continuity of service with 25% back wages. It is further the case of the petitioner that while granting such reinstatement and 25% back wages and for denial of rest of the back wages, no cogent reasons are assigned which has led the petitioner to submit the present petition.

(3.) Mr.Jigar Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the Industrial Tribunal was justified to the extent of granting reinstatement with continuity but, has failed to grant 100% back wages and to that extent, a serious error of jurisdiction is committed. It has been contended that it is settled position of law that when termination is held to be illegal, the same must be backed by 100% back wages which is a normal rule and for denial of such 100% back wages, no cogent reasons are assigned. Learned advocate has further contended that there was no evidence of any nature, as a result of which the criminal case has turned into an order of acquittal. Learned advocate has submitted that in fact, once the criminal court has passed an order of acquittal, there was no germane reason for respondent authority to impose an order of penalty. Hence, by contending this, the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is assailed in the present proceedings. No other submissions have been made.