STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Bank of Patiala has filed this Letters Patent Appeal challenging the judgment dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (C.W.P. No. 21600 of 2008) filed by the appellant-Bank challenging the award of the Labour Court modifying the punishment of dismissal of the workman from service to stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect, has been dismissed. In this case, the respondent-workman was appointed in the appellant-Bank as a Peon in the year 1973. In the year 1984 he was promoted as Record Keeper/Godown Keeper and posted at Miller Ganj Branch, Ludhiana where in the year 1987 he was charge-sheeted on the allegations that he had unauthorizedly delivered the stocks to the borrowers, which were pledged with the appellant-Bank as a security in cash credit limit, in violation of the instructions of the Bank, and in order to conceal the unauthorized delivery of the stocks to the firms, certain stocks of paper/board of inferior quality were kept in the godowns, which were actually not pledged with the bank.

(2.) The respondent-workman replied to the charge-sheet showing his ignorance about the illegalities being committed by the borrowing firm. However, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges. On the basis of the enquiry report, after issuing show cause notice, the workman was dismissed from service vide order dated 24.8.1988 (Annexure P3). The appeal preferred by him was dismissed vide order dated 10.4.1989 (Annexure P4). Thereafter, the workman raised an industrial dispute by issuing the demand notice and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for its adjudication.

(3.) The Labour Court after considering the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that a fair and proper enquiry was conducted by the management. However, after going through the entire evidence led before it and the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it was found that there is no evidence on the record to establish that the workman had removed the stocks in collusion with the borrowing firm or with intent to gain something in removing the stocks. It has also been found that the workman had not embezzled or misappropriated any amount of the Bank or caused any financial loss to it. Rather it was observed that all the witnesses of the bank had stated very good about the integrity, behaviour, attitude and sincerity of the workman. While taking into consideration all these factors, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal of the respondent workman from service was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the workman. After coming to the said conclusion, the Labour Court vide order dated 14.8.2008 (Annexure P5) converted the punishment of dismissal of the workman from service into stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and ordered his reinstatement with full back-wages in exercise of its powers vested under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act').