SUNITA B VATSARAJ Vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come before the Court by way of this petition challenging the Order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Bombay. It came to be passed in Reference No. CGIT-17 of 1990 on 4th July, 1994. This reference has been referred to the Tribunal under the provisions of section 10 (1) (d) read with section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the respondent Bank with effect from 31st October, 1994.

(2.) THE petitioner was employed in the said bank as Clerk Trainee on 3rd December, 1971 and on completion of the trainee period, she was taken up as probationary clerk on 16th May, 1972. She worked on that basis almost for six years. She was promoted on 10th May, 1978 to the rank of Officer Grade III. Her salary was more than Rs. 2,700/- being payable to clerical staff. By her letter dated 12th May, 1978, the petitioner accepted the promotion and reported to Bandra Branch where she was transferred. She started working in that Branch from 17th May, 1978. On 24th May, 1978, the respondent-Bank executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner. During that time, when she was working in the Bandra Branch, one Mr. Satish Rao was working as Branch Manager. He was transferred from Bandra Branch in the month of April, 1982, and from 9th April, 1982 to 8th May, 1982, the petitioner was holding charge of the Bandra Branch of the respondent-Bank. She was, therefore, working as Manager of the Bandra Branch of the respondent-Bank. On 8th May, 1982, the new Manager Mr. Satish Udupa took over and during the intervening period, the petitioner was holding the charge of the branch as Manager. The petitioner proceeded on leave on medical grounds as also on maternity leave from 11th May, 1982.

(3.) IN the month of June, 1982, what is alleged to be the misconduct of the petitioner came to be noticed and, therefore, she was contacted by the management of the respondent -Bank. According to the respondent-Bank, she had given a letter dated 14th June, 1982 admitting the lacks on her part. This led to the initiation of the departmental proceedings eventually relating to her termination. A reference was answered against the petitioner on the ground that she is not a workman.