W.P.17282[2005
C/W. W.P.2 I4 14/2005
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED T HIS THE 15"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2609
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G. RAMESI-I
WRIT PETITION No.17282 OF 2805 (L-RES)
CZW.
WRIT PETITION NO.21414 OF 2005 [L-TERI
In W.P. 17282 (2005:
BETWEEN:
DENA BANK.
REGIONAL OFFICE, SONA TOWERS.
1ST FLOOR, 71, MILLARS ROAD.
BANGALORE660 052.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL AUTHORITY. PETITIONER.
(BY SRI. RAMESH UPADHYAYA, ADV.)
AND:
D.N. NARSEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
RESIDING AT NO.1I/1, 15"? CROSS,
151"" MAIN, SRINAGAR,
BANGALORE--560 O50. RESPONDENT.
(BY SR1. PRASANNA, ADV. FOR
M/S. P.S. RAJAGOPAL ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
81 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 29-11-2004
PASSED IN C . R. NO . 7 / 2002 BY THE CENTRAL
W.P.1 7282 g 2005
C/W. W.P.21414/2005
2
GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALwCUM--LABOUR
COURT, BANGALORE.
IN W.P.2 1414/2005:
BETWEEN:
D.N. NARASEGOWDA.
S / O. NARASAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
EARLIER WORKING AS CLERK AT
DENA BANK, NAGASHETTIHALLY,
BANGALORE--56O O94, SINCE
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED AND
RESIDING AT NO. 1 1/ 1, 157" CROSS,
157" MAIN, SRINAGAR.
BANGALORE--560 050. PETITIONER
[BY SR1. PRASANNA, ADV. FOR
M/S. RS. MAGOPAL ASSOCIATES. ADVS.)
AND:
DENA BANK,
A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE
BANKING COMPANIES {ACQUISITION
& TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS] ACT, 1970,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL AUTHORITY.
REGIONAL OFFICE: SONA TOWERS,
I FLOOR, 71, MILLERS ROAD.
BANGALORE~58O O52. RESPONDENT
(BY SR1. RAMESH UPADHYAYA, ADV.}
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22--O7w1998 VIDE ANNEXUREG
BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, ORDER DATED 27-02-
ZOOI VIDE ANNEXURE--H BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORETY
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29~11~200-4 BY THE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
W.P.17282[2005
C/W. W.P.21414/2005
3
LABOUR COURT IN C.R.NO.7/2002 VIDE ANNEXURE--M
INSOFAR AS IT IS CONCERNED TO PETITIONER AND
ALLOW THE REFERENCE ANSWERING IT IN FAVOUR OF
THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT BANK TO
REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO THE SERVICES OF THE
BANK 'WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING
BACKWAGES AS IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WAS NEVER IN EXISTENCE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING.
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
These two Writ petitions by the employer–Bank and
the workman are directed against the award dated 29-
11»~2004 passed by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal–Cum–Labour Court, Bangalore in
CR.No.7/ 2002. By the impugned award, the Industrial
Tribunal has modified the punishment of dismissal to
one of removal from service with superannuation benefits
such as Pension, Provident Fund, Gratuity, etc.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perused the impugned award and the LCR.
\
kl},/,..
W.P.17282g2005
C/W. W.P.2l414/2005
4
3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner while working
as a clerk in the employer —- Dena Bank was subjected to
a disciplinary enquiry on the allegation that he had
stolen and fraudulently encashed four cheques
aggregating Rs.l4,565/-. The enquiry resulted in his
dismissal from service by order dated 22-07 -1998 which
also came to be confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
Before the Industrial Tribunal, the workman conceded
the fairness of the domestic enquiry. The Industrial
Tribunal has upheld the finding of misconduct on the
ground it was based on a proper consideration of the
evidence. However, the Industrial Tribunal by the
impugned award has modified the punishment as stated
above. ‘
4. Learned counsel appearing for the employer — Bank
submits that on the facts of the case, the Labour Court
had erred in modifying the punishment of dismissal to
that of removal from service. Further, according to the
counsel, it had proceeded on an erroneous assumption
Sm/r
W.P.17282g2005
C/W. W.P.21414/2005
5
that the workman had an unblemished service record.
He referred to the previous disciplinary cases, the record
of which is at Page 51 of the LCR. Learned counsel
appearing for the workman could not dispute this fact.
Hence, 1 find force in the contention of the learned
counsel for the employer — Bank, that the Industrial
Tribunal examined the aspect of ‘punishment’ on an
erroneous assumption relating to the previous service
record of the Workman. Accordingly, the impugned award
insofar as it relates to modification of the punishment
requires to be set–aside and the matter requires to be
reconsidered by the Industrial Tribunal insofar as it
relates to modification of the punishment.
5. So far as the writ petition of the Workman in
W.P.2l414/ 2005 is concerned, the finding of misconduct
is based on a proper consideration of the evidence and
hence is not liable to be interfered with by this Court as
held by the I-Ion’b1e Supreme Court in MGMT.,
MADURANTAKAM CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs. S.
3&9
W.P.17282[2005
C/W. W.P.21414/2005
6
VISWANATIIAN (AIR 2005 SC 1954). So far as the
punishment is concerned, learned counsel appearing for
the workman rightly submits that if the impugned award
insofar as it relates to modification of the punishment is
set aside, the Writ petition filed by the workman does not
survive for consideration.
6. In View of the above, I make the following order:
[1] the impugned award. insofar as it relates to
modification of the punishment is set–aside; –
the matter insofar as it relates to punishment
is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal for
reconsideration in accordance with law;
contentions of both the parties relating to the
punishment are kept open.
[ii] Registry to return the LCR forthwith.
Petitions disposed of.
sd/~
}UDGE
KS /Ata