Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs S.L. Rajanna S.L. Rajanna Vs Karnataka Bank Limited

Ravi V. Malimath, J.—The case of the workman is that he was employed as an Attender in the management Bank. On 16.5.1988, seven articles of charges was issued to him on acts of misconduct. Charges were to the effect that the workman without authority had made credit entries in the records of the bank and later when it was detected, he remitted the same etc. Since his explanation was not satisfactory, a domestic inquiry was initiated. The inquiry officer held that charges 2 and 3 were proved and the remaining charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority dismissed him from service. Aggrieved by the same, he raised a dispute under Section 10(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Tribunal on re-appreciation of the material on record held that, charge number 2 is proved and charge number 3 is not proved. The Tribunal held that the penalty of dismissal of service was disproportionate and hence directed reinstatement without backwages and withholding of six annual increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the bank preferred writ petition No. 10404/2007. The workman being aggrieved by the denial of backwages and withholding of six annual increments filed writ petition No. 4150/2008. By a common order dated 28.10.2011, both the writ petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the workman has filed Writ Appeal No. 17989/2011 and the bank has filed Writ Appeal No. 18010/2011.

The workman contends that the impugned order is bad in law and prays to set aside the order of denial of backwages, withholding of six annual increments, and that he is entitled for annual increments.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the bank submits that the question of reinstatement and backwages does not arise for consideration, as grave misconduct has been committed and hence he is liable to be terminated. In support of his case he relies on the judgment reported in 2006-I LLJ 987 in the case of KARNATAKA BANK LTD., AND A.L. MOHAN RAO to contend that a case of this nature does warrant dismissal of service and any interference in such an order is incorrect.

Heard learned counsels and examined the material on record.

Charge No. 2 was held to be proved. It was to the effect of making an entry in the ledger without authority. The workman submitted that, due to pressure of work in the bank, the said error was committed. Thereafter, the appropriate amount has been remitted back to the bank. He contends that, the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate. Hence he prays for reinstatement, backwages and all consequential benefits be granted. The Tribunal on considering the second charge held that, charge No. 2 having been proved, appropriate punishment requires to be awarded. However, the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate. It was of the view that, in terms of the findings, it has come on record that the officers of the bank were making the workmen to make entries in the ledger, as there were shortage of hands. Therefore, the management itself is to be blamed to a great extent in making the subordinate staff of attenders, to perform the duties to make entries in the ledger. It is for this reason the order of termination was interfered with.

We are of the considered view that the reason assigned by the labour Court is not acceptable. The question whether the employee was working in various capacities and the management is to be blamed for it is unacceptable. When work has been assigned, and done, the workman thereafter cannot complain of it. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in directing the punishment being set aside, requires to be interfered with.

In the judgment referred to supra by the learned counsel for the bank, were on the similar lines. There too, the employee was charge sheeted and he was terminated from service. The learned Single Judge interfered with the order of dismissal of service. It was confirmed by the division bench. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the gross misconduct as such deserves termination and since these misconduct would attract termination, it is not for the Courts to interfere with the punishment. Hence, the judgment is applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the charge No. 2 being proved, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of termination is just and proper.

For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Appeal No. 17989/2011 is dismissed. Writ Appeal No. 18010/2011 is partly allowed. The award of the labour Court dated 14.3.2007 passed in CR. No. 29/1990 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court is set aside. The order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of dismissal of service is upheld. Writ Appeals are disposed off accordingly.

All terminal benefits which the workman is entitled to as on the date of termination, shall be settled by the bank.