IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 5076 of 2007(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.K. SUNNY, S/O.LATE KOCHOUSEPH, KOLENCHERRY HOUSE, KANJOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.A.K.PREETHA SMT.BINDHYA JOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-14. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, HEAD OFFICE , FEDERAL TOWERS, P.B.NO.103, ALUVA-683 101. R1 BY MR.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADDL.CGSC R2 BY ADVS.MR.K.ANAND (A.201), SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.5076/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 10.10.06 IN ID. 17/2005 ON ITS FILES. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.5076 OF 2007 (E -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ Petition is against Ext.P1, the award rendered by the first respondent in I.D.No.17/2005. 2. The workman was a sub staff working at the Kolencherry Branch of the Federal Bank. Memo of charges were issued to him containing allegations that he had sent anonymous letter to the Manager of Manjery Branch making allegations against the Assistant Manager, that he had sent another anonymous letter to the wife of an employee, making allegations against her husband and that an anonymous letter was sent to the Vigilance Department stating that one of the employees of the Bank had secured employment by producing false documents. 3. An enquiry was held in which the Ist and the 3rd charges were held proved. Notice for dismissal of the workman was issued but however after hearing the workman, considering his family background and sickness of his wife. Disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits. An WPC.No.5076/07 :2 : appeal filed by the workman was rejected. It was thereafter that union raised a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, conciliation failed and finally following issue was referred for adjudication by the first respondent. “Whether the action of the Federal Bank Ltd. to impose punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits to Shri.K.K.Sunny, Bankman (sub-staff cadre) is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?.” 4. The Labour court considered the proportionality of the punishment and held that the action of the management in imposing punishment is legal and proper. It is challenging the said award the writ petition is filed. 5. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the Labour Court has committed any illegality in exercising the powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. A reading of the award shows that charges 1 and 3 were proved in an enquiry which was properly conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The award also shows that on a previous occasion for the misconduct of stealing the keys, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the workman and he was WPC.No.5076/07 :3 : dismissed from service. However, in appeal he was ordered to be reinstated, imposing a punishment of barring 5 increments. It was thereafter the present misconduct was committed. 7. The misconducts alleged were gross misconducts in terms of the bilateral agreement between the management and union. The Labour court considered the gravity of the misconduct and the previous misconduct committed by the workman and it was finally held that the workman deserves to be imposed the punishment. Thereafter, the Labour court considered the proportionality of the punishment in the light of Section 11A, referred to the Apex Court judgments and it was on that basis that the Labour court confirmed the punishment. In my view, the view taken by the Labour court is perfectly reasonable and no interference is called for. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/