The Court dismissed writ petitions challenging an Industrial Tribunal's order converting removal to discharge in a banking disciplinary case. Finding no manifest injustice, the Court declined interference under Article 226.
Writ petitions dismissed; parties to bear respective costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932
OP.No. 14328 of 2000(E)
PETITIONER(S):
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P&HRD).
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, ALONG WITH OP NO. 35443 OF 2000 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER ON CMP NO.23130 OF 2000 IN OP NO.14328 OF 2000 E
//DISMISSED//
24.3.2010
SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL DATED 15.12.1999 IN I.D.NO.7/97.
/TRUE COPY/
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
............................................................. O.P.NOs.14328 & 35443 OF 2000
............................................................. Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T ≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈
1.These two writ petitions are filed challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The employer Bank placed its employee under suspension and took disciplinary proceedings on grounds relating to alleged manipulation of documents in the course of banking business. The disciplinary proceedings ended in finding the delinquent guilty. He was accordingly dismissed from service. On appropriate reference in terms of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Industrial Tribunal, after considering the materials, came to the conclusion that the disciplinary proceedings are valid, not vitiated on any count and that the findings are proper. However, acting under Section 11A of the ID Act, the Tribunal converted the punishment of removal from service to be one of discharge. The employer Bank has filed OP.14328/2000 challenging the
OP.NOs.14328/00 & 35443/00
2
action of the Tribunal in converting the punishment to be one of discharge. The employee has filed OP.35553/2000 challenging the refusal of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings.
2.Having considered the materials of record and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I don't find any irregularity or illegality in the Tribunal having confirmed the disciplinary proceedings, it having been held in accordance with the rules of procedure, natural justice and applicable laws. In so far as the modification of the punishment from one of removal from service to discharge is concerned, it needs to be noticed that the Tribunal has given reasons for bringing in such modifications and the facts and circumstances, including the age of the delinquent, would have persuaded the Tribunal to take such an approach on facts, though the allegations and charges levelled and found in the disciplinary proceedings related to banking business. With the passage of time of more than 10 years and taking
OP.NOs.14328/00 & 35443/00
3
into consideration the entire materials on record, I do not find it necessary for this Court to interfere in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution since the decision of the Industrial Tribunal does not demonstrate any manifest injustice, either to the employer bank or the employee. Thus, balancing the scales of justice, it is seen that both these writ petitions are only to be dismissed.
In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
rkc/kkb.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Industrial Tribunal acted with jurisdiction in converting removal from service to discharge.
Whether the writ court should interfere with the Tribunal's order under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether there is manifest injustice requiring interference in the dismissal and discharge case.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State Bank of Travancore
Shri James C. Mathew
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
