MANAGEMENT, N.N. 565 THIRUVETRIYUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL, CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT, MADURAI AND K. MUNIYASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is co-operative bank, registered under the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act. The second respondent herein, who was working as an Attender in the petitioner bank, misappropriated the amount. Hence, the second respondent was suspended from service, on and from 31.07.1992. A detailed charge memo, dated 01.08.1992, was issued to him calling upon the second respondent to submit his explanation. The second respondent submitted his explanation, on 25.06.1993. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the second respondent, the petitioner ordered a domestic enquiry and accordingly, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted enquiry report, on 22.09.1993, holding that the charges levelled against the second respondent were proved. Therefore, by order, dated 27.09.1993, the second respondent was dismissed from service. Questioning the order of dismissal, the second respondent filed I.D.No.131 of 1997, before the Labour Court, Madurai. By Award, dated 03.10.2007, the Labour Court, Madurai, set at naught the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the second respondent in service, without continuity of service, but without back wages. Assailing the correctness of the Award of the Labour Court, Madurai, the petitioner/management is now before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court committed a grave error in passing the Award by reinstating the second respondent, without any valid reasons. The learned counsel further contended that the Labour Court could have either remanded back the matter for fresh enquiry or permitted the parties to let in evidence. The learned counsel also contended that since the second respondent did not appear for enquiry, the proceedings were concluded exparte. The learned counsel also contended that the evidence let in on behalf of the petitioner would clearly establish that the charges against the second respondent are true and not aimed to terminate the services of the second respondent at the instance of the secretary. The learned counsel also contended that abandonment of service for a long period would amount to voluntary retirement warranting no orders from the employer and placed reliance on the Judgments of the Apex court in Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Vs. Anita Nandrajog, 2009 9 SCC 462and in Vijay S.Sathaye Vs. Indian Airlines Limited and others, 2013 10 SCC 253. The learned counsel hence pleaded that in the above circumstances, the Award of the Labour Court may be set aside.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that there is no perversity in the order of the first respondent in setting aside the order of termination, as the domestic enquiry was completed, without providing proper opportunity to the second respondent and the entire proceedings proceeded in a predetermined idealogy. The Labour Court also considered the evidence and found that the evidence does not disclose the charter of duties of the second respondent so as to fix the liability on him, and hence, rightly set aside the order of the petitioner/management. The learned counsel, however, contended that without considering that the second respondent was not even paid the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, the Labour Court just directed to reinstate the second respondent with continuity of service without back wages. The learned counsel, hence, pleaded that the Writ Petition may be dismissed and the Award may be modified so as to grant back wages to the second respondent.