LAWS(MAD)-2011-1-370

ALL INDIA OVERSEAS BANK Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT

Decided On January 11, 2011
ALL INDIA OVERSEAS BANK Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Writ Petition is the Award of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.97/2001 dated 09.01.2003 whereby the Industrial Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of punishment dismissing the workman Rajangam from the services of the 2nd Respondent Bank.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that Workman Rajangam was appointed as Messenger in the subordinate cadre in 1983 in the 2nd Respondent Bank and was attached to their Nachalur branch. Savings Bank Account No.3386 in the name of Petitioner's brother Krishnamurthy was opened on 28.11.1990 with Rs.25/-. A small loan of Rs.5000/- was sanctioned in the name of Petitioner's brother Krishnamurthy on 30.11.1990 for provision shop and the same was credited to his S.B. Account No.3386. An amount of Rs.5029/- was debited to his account for issuing Bankers' Cheque favouring Arunachalam Maligai. The above Bankers' cheque of Rs.5029/- and another Bankers' cheque of Rs.5015/- totalling Rs.10,044/- was credited to S.B. Account No.2263 of Arunachalam. Arunachalam had given withdrawal slip on 01.12.1990 for withdrawing Rs.10,044/- However, he has received cash of Rs.5015/- only. The balance of Rs.5029/- was said to have been received by the Petitioner from the Cashier. The above said act amounts to gross misconduct in terms of Para 17.5(d) and 17.5(j) of Bipartite Settlement between the Bank and its workmen. The Disciplinary Authority issued a charge sheet to the delinquent on 10.05.1993. A show cause notice was issued to the delinquent and in the personal hearing the delinquent Rajangam is said to have admitted his mistake stating that he has committed the same unknowingly and to sympathetically consider his case. By the order dated 27.04.1996, Petitioner was dismissed from 2nd Respondent Bank service with immediate effect. Onbehalf of delinquent, Union has raised the Industrial Dispute.

(3.) HEARD Mr.M.Vembadiyan, learned counsel for Petitioner and Mr.K.Srinivasamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for 2nd Respondent.