SPECIAL OFFICER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award dated 25.01.2010 passed in I.D.No.275 of 1994 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner is the Vellore District Central Co-operative Bank Limited. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the second respondent was employed as a Cashier in the writ petitioner/District Central Co-operative Bank. The Management, during enquiry, found that the funds of the Bank were misappropriated by the Manager with the assistance of Cashier, who is the second respondent in the present writ petition. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the second respondent and 19 charges were framed against the second respondent/employee. A charge memo was issued in proceedings dated 28.02.1990 and a perusal of the charge memo reveals that all the charges are relating to the misappropriation of the funds of the Central Co-operative Bank and the second respondent as a cashier, abeted the grave misconduct or misappropriation with the Manager, against whom allegation of misappropriation was mooted out. The domestic enquiry was conducted and based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent/workman was dismissed from service. The domestic enquiry was conducted by affording opportunity to the second respondent and the Enquiry Officer found that all the charges against the second respondent are proved except Charge Nos.6 and 19. Based on the proved charges, the punishment of dismissal from service was issued against the second respondent. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.275 of 1994. The Labour Court allowed the industrial dispute and ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service with 25% of backwages.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the fairness of the domestic enquiry was affirmed by the Labour Court. The charges against the second respondent are undoubtedly grave in nature. The second respondent, who was holding the post of Cashier abeted the misappropriation of funds of the writ petitioner/Bank along with Manager and therefore, the charges proved by the Management against the second respondent are grave in nature and therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service is appropriate and the Labour Court has committed an error in invoking Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.