AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has challenged the award made by the Industrial Tribunal directing the payment of a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 being the equivalent of
four years'' wages to the second respondent herein as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The second respondent had been dismissed from
service by the petitioner/bank on August 16, 1984.
The second respondent, as Bill Collector, was required to collect the amounts payable by way of pension, to certain pensioners who are
constituents of the bank, for credit to their accounts at the Bank''s Anna Road branch. The second respondent after collecting the amounts from
the post office a sum of Rs. 1,736 on November 26, 1983, Rs. 1,112 on December 17, 1983; Rs. 2,034 on January 23, 1984 and a sum of Rs.
434 on January 28, 1984, did not remit the monies to the bank immediately after the monies were collected from the post office. After his
misappropriation came to light, he remitted the monies to the bank, between January and March, 1984. The payment made by him on January 23,
1984, towards monies which should have been deposited in November, December, 1983 was apparently out of the sum of Rs. 2,034 which was
collected by him on the same day from the post office but not remitted to the bank. The second respondent was charged with misappropriation
and placed under suspension. An enquiry was also held thereafter.
In his reply to the show-cause notice, as also in the statement before the Enquiry Officer, he admitted the misappropriation, but contended that
he had resorted to such temporary misappropriation on account of compelling circumstance. It was stated by him that he had incurred debts for the
construction of a small house on account of the insistence of his wife, and being unable to discharge the debt, he was at the mercy of his creditors,
who knowing that he was a Bill Collector, had threatened him with dire consequence, if he failed to pay them the monies collected by him from the
post office. He pleaded for mercy on the ground that he had committed the misappropriation under such compelling circumstances. He also
pleaded that his 22 years of unblemished service in the bank, be taken into account while deciding the nature of the punishment.
The employer after considering the reply and the report of the Enquiry Officer which held him guilty of the charges, dismissed him from service.
The appeal against the order of dismissal was also rejected. The workman thereafter raised an industrial dispute, which was adjudicated by the
Industrial Tribunal.
Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced on either side. The workman relied upon the documentary evidence exhibits W-1 to W-17
and the petitioner herein relied upon exhibits M-1 to M-3. The second respondent did not challenge the legality and validity of the enquiry on any
ground, and the argument addressed on his behalf was confined only to Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The plea was that the
punishment imposed was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by him.
The Tribunal has in its award, after considering the misconduct committed by the workmen, held that ""the allegations levelled against the
petitioner which had been voluntarily accepted by him in the enquiry conducted and, therefore, stand proved, clearly indicate the he had committed
grave misconduct by committing acts prejudicial to the interests of the bank in terms of section 521.4(j) of the Sastri Award"".
At paragraph 9 of the Award, the Tribunal has stated : ""It is no doubt true that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct, which would
normally entail the order of dismissal.
The Tribunal however, persuaded itself, even after holding that the second respondent herein was guilty of grave misconduct which would entail
order of dismissal, to hold, that the order of dismissal was harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. In reaching the
conclusion, the Tribunal gave three reasons, that the workman had put in 22 years of unblemished service; that the misappropriation was
committed under compelling circumstances and that the monies misappropriated had been fully repaid. The Tribunal proceeded to set aside the
order of dismissal, and by taking note of the fact that the workman''s last drawn pay was Rs. 2,481.88 and he had about 14 years of service left
on the date of dismissal, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000 which is equivalent to four years'' salary as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The
workman was also held to be entitled to claim provident fund, gratuity and other amounts legally due to him.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse. Counsel submitted that the petitioner is a
banking institution to which its constituents have entrusted their monies. The employees of the bank are required to safeguard the monies so
entrusted and not appropriate the money for their own use. The second respondent who was employed as a Bill Collector, and whose work was
to collect the pension amounts of some of the customers of the bank, from the post office, for being deposited in their accounts in the bank, had
after collecting the monies from the post office misappropriated the same. Such action on the part of the workman was not only gross misconduct,
but also an offense for which the bank could have properly given a criminal complaint. The workman who had admitted the misappropriation,
would have, had prosecution been initiated, certainly been found guilty of the offence and would have been disentitled to be in the bank''s
employment on account of the conviction for moral turpitude.
Counsel referred to section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which prohibits the employment in banking company, of any person who
has committed an offense involving moral turpitude. Counsel, therefore, submitted that, the mere fact that the petitioner had not taken that step of
initiating criminal proceedings, does not render the offense committed by the workman any the less grave. The workman having been found guilty
of that gross misconduct at the domestic enquiry, the petitioner was entitled to take a serious note of the same, and no fault could possibly be
found with its decision to impose the penalty of dismissal. Even the Industrial Tribunal has held that such gross misconduct would normally entail an
order of dismissal. The Tribunal, it was, therefore, submitted, has acted contrary to law and the admitted facts, in holding that the penalty of
dismissal was harsh and excessive, in proceeding to set aside the order of dismissal, and further rewarding such an employee with payment of four;
years'' salary, as compensation, instead of penalising the employee who had admitted his gross misconduct. The Tribunal, it was submitted, has
penalised the employer for having taken action against the delinquent employee, and the Tribunal had not exercised its powers u/s 11-A of the Act,
in accordance with the settled legal principles, which govern the exercise of that power by the Tribunal.
In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to several decided cases. In the case of Engine Valves Ltd. Vs.
Labour Court, Madras and another, , a Division Bench of this Court held :
The power and discretion conferred u/s 11-A of the Act have to be exercised judicially and judiciously and there should be sufficient indication in
the order itself of the fact that the Court exercising the powers u/s 11-A of the Act was aware of and alive to the norms and requirements of
section 11-A of the Act. The Court exercising the powers and u/s 11-A of the Act, after holding the misconduct to have been proved, is first
obliged to advert itself to the question of necessity or desirability to interfere with the punishment imposed by the management and, if the
management could not justify the punishment imposed, thereafter it must consider the question as to relief that is to be granted to the employee.
In the case of Christian Medical College is Christian Medical College Hospital Employees'' Union and Another Vs. Christian Medical College
Vellore Association and Others, , it was held that the order made by the Labour Court by invoking section 11-A of the Act is not conclusive, but
is open to judicial review. Counsel referred to the observations of the Court in para 14 of that judgment (at page 274).
The power u/s 11-A of the Act has to be exercised judicially and the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court is expected to interfere with the
decision of management u/s 11-A of the Act only when it is satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to
the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court has to give reasons for its decision. The decision of the
Industrial Tribunal or of the Labour Court is again, as already said, subject to judicial review by the High Court and this Court"".
T. Seeralan Vs. The Presiding Officer II Additional Labour Court and Others, was a case of dismissal of a stores attender in a canteen who
had put in 17 years of unblemished serviced, on the ground that he had committed theft of canteen coupons of the value of Rs. 24.48. This Court
upheld the dismissal and observed :
If the Company instead of launching criminal prosecution chooses to proceed by domestic enquiry, there is very little scope for generosity to be
shown or to bring into existence minor punishment for such derelictions, committing theft had been considered as a penal offense in the interest of
society to maintain law and order in the country, and to strike out standards, when they occur in industries would be detrimental to the interest of
the nation, if a different approach is made mainly because he is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. Plea for reinstatement is an untenable
one.
In that case, the Tribunal had modified the order of dismissal into one of termination of service. The workman''s plea that he should be
reinstated in service was rejected by this Court.
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of D. Padmanabhudu Vs. Bank of India and Another, , which was a case of an
Accounts Clerk in a nationalised bank who had been dismissed from service on the charge that he did not deposit the amounts remitted by the
customers for crediting to their respective accounts, but misappropriated them and even fabricated false documents by posting false entries, held
that the Labour Court had misdirected itself, when it held that the punishment of dismissal that had been imposed was excessive. The Court
observed. at P. 1077
Once an enquiry is properly held and the management has thought fit to pass an order of dismissal considering the nature and gravity of the act
committed by the employee, it is not for the Court including the Labour Court to interfere with such orders of the management. This being a case of
misappropriation by person who was holding the position of Accounts Clerk in a bank it cannot be said that the bank had taken a wrong view of
the matter and the punishment was unduly harsh"".
Reliance was also place on the case or Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kailash Chand Sharma and Another, wherein it was
observed : at P. 271
If a public servant commits breach of trust, or commits theft or misappropriation, there is absolutely no justification for showing any compassion or
leniency in the matter of punishment.
Counsel submitted that in this case the Tribunal has not acted judicially and judiciously in holding that the penalty of dismissal was excessive,
and in directing the petitioner to pay compensation equivalent to four years'' wages in lieu of reinstatement, as there was no justification whatsoever
for setting aside the order of dismissal, which had been properly imposed for an admitted act of gross misconduct.
Learned Counsel for the workman, on the other hand, urged that the order of the Tribunal should not be interfered with. Counsel submitted
that the Tribunal has properly taken note of the compelling circumstances, under which the misappropriation was committed, and, therefore, the
relief granted to the workman should not be disturbed. Counsel also submitted the section 11-A of the Act has vested a managerial function in the
Tribunal and it is open to the Tribunal to do all such things as the management could do in relation to the matter, and, therefore, the discretion
exercised by the Tribunal, being a matter within its jurisdiction, ought not to be interfered with.
Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Dass Vs. Union of India (UOI)
and Another, . The appellant in that case was a Cashier in the Delhi Milk Supply Scheme who had been convicted for criminal breach of trust on
account of his failure to deposit a sum of Rs. 500, the appellant having deposited 1,107.99 out of Rs. 1,607.99 that had been entrusted to him.
The Magistrate had held that the appellant was victim of adverse circumstances; his son died in February, 1962, which was followed by another
misfortune; his wife fell down from an upper story and was seriously injured; it was then the turn of the daughter who fell seriously ill, and that
illness lasted for eight months. Having regard to these circumstances, his case was dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1985. The
Central Government, however, dismissed the employee in huff, on the basis of his conviction. The Apex Court held that such dismissal was
whimsical, and observed ""but the right to impose a penalty carried with it the duty to act justly"".
Counsel relied on the following observations contained in the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of R. M. Parmer v. Gujarat
Electricity Board, 1983 I LLJ 262, at page 265;
Taking of a petty article by a worker in a moment of weakness when he yields to temptation does not call for an extreme penalty of dismissal from
service. More particularly when he does not hold a sensitive post of trust (pilferage by a Cashier or by a Storekeeper from the stores in his charge,
for instance, maybe viewed with seriousness). A worker brought up and living in an atmosphere of poverty and want when faced with temptation,
ought not to, but may, yield to it in a moment of weakness. It cannot be approved, but it can certainly be understood particularly in an age when
even the rich commit economic offenses to get richer and do so by and large with impunity. (And even tax evasion or possession of black money is
not considered to be dishonurable by the large). A penalty of removal from service is, therefore, not called for when a poor worker yields to a
momentary temptation and commits an offence which often passes under the honourable name of Kleptomania when committed by the rich.
Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Air Lanka Ltd. Vs. John William Nathan and another, , wherein compensation
in lieu of reinstatement was directed to be paid to a helper who had been dismissed for removing a bag worth Rs. 100 from the office of Air
Lanka.
The power vested in the Labour Court or the Tribunal u/s 11-A to grant relief in appropriate cases, though vast, is not unguided, and cannot
be exercised whimsical, arbitrarily or in a perverse manner. The Court or the Tribunal is called upon to exercise a judicial power and not perform a
managerial function like a Manager,. While those in charge of the management of an industry, may, if they so desire, freely condone or overlook
lapses and misconduct of their employees without having to demonstrate the reasonableness of their action or inaction, it is not open to the Court
or the Tribunal to exercise its Judicial power in that manner. The relief to be granted must be justified on the basis of rational and relevant criteria.
An employee is required to maintain integrity at all times. Relatively minor lapses may not always be visited with the extreme penalty of
dismissal. The unfortunate reality of widespread corruption at many levels in society, cannot however, be put forward as an excuse or justification
for misappropriation or theft, and immunity from being penalised claimed in respect of such gross misconduct. While personal tragedy contributing
directly to the lapse may call for leniency in the choice of penalty, each and every circumstance which the employee may choose to consider as
compelling, cannot constitute a constitute a justification for setting aside the penalty imposed for an admitted act of gross misconduct.
On the facts of this case, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of termination, The misappropriation was by a Bill Collector in
a bank whose duty was to collect from the post office the amount of pension receivable by the constituents of the bank and deposit the same in
their accounts. Admittedly, the workman failed to credit several thousand rupees for some months, and misappropriated the amounts though
temporarily. The excuse put forth was that his creditors compelled him to part with the cash after he collected the monies from the post office. The
debts were said to have been incurred for the construction of his house.
Indebtedness is not uncommon, as most people borrow monies, for short or long terms for various purposes. Employers, with a view to help
their employees also provide advances of various kinds, including advance for house building purposes. The excuse put forth by the employee that
he had to misappropriate the funds of the pensioner constituents of the bank to satisfy his creditors, can hardly be regarded as a justification or
investigation for the gross misconduct committed by him. The Tribunal has acted perversely in setting aside the penalty on the basis of such
explanation on the part of the workman. The award of compensation equivalent to four years'' salary in lieu of reinstatement is equally perverse.
Not only has the Tribunal condoned the gross misconduct, but further proceeded to reward such gross misconduct.
The relief of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is, therefore set aside and the termination of employment of the second respondent upheld.
All terminal benefits such as provident fund and gratuity to which the workman is entitled by reason of his long years of service in the bank, shall,
however, be paid to him, if it has not been paid so far.