A.P.Mahesh Coop.Urban Bank Ltd VsIndustrial Tribunal

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 8.8.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.41 of 2001.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a bank and respondent No.2 was employed as a Clerk with the petitioner-bank and respondent No.2 was involved in a criminal case and though he was acquitted in the criminal case, but in the departmental enquiry, respondent No.2 was found to be guilty of the charge levelled against him that he has fraudulently withdrawn some amount from a customer's account and the disciplinary authority had imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service for the proven misconduct vide proceedings dated 04.5.1999. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has unsuccessfully preferred an appeal and thereafter, challenging the order of the disciplinary authority, he approached the Industrial Tribunal by filing I.D.No.41 of 2001 under the Industrial Disputes Act and the said I.D was allowed by the Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 08.8.2002 setting aside the dismissal order, but, however directed that respondent No.2 be reinstated into service with full back wages and continuity of service. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in compliance of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated into service, however after reinstatement, respondent No.2 has tendered his resignation and left the job and the only issue in the present writ petition is with regard to payment of back wages to respondent No.2. He further contended that Industrial Tribunal has relied upon the findings given in a criminal case and the Industrial Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the criminal proceedings are altogether different from the departmental enquiry and that in the departmental enquiry the charge levelled against respondent No.2 is held to be proved. On this short point, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Industrial Tribunal ought not to have granted full back wages to respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that Industrial Tribunal has examined the case of respondent No.2 and rightly came to the conclusion that he is entitled to full back wages and continuity of service. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

This Court, having regard to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both parties, is of the considered view that the Industrial Tribunal had appreciated the facts from right perspective while allowing the I.D., but the Industrial Tribunal failed to appreciate that the charge levelled against respondent No.2 was independently proved in the departmental enquiry. The present writ  petition is pending since the year 2002 and this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is slightly modified directing that 75% of back wages be paid to respondent No.2 instead of full back wages and the rest of the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal is confirmed.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.