THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Writ Petition Nos. 24364 of 2004 and 528 of 2005 DT. 7.2.2011 Between: M.V.Raja Rao … Petitioner And The Presiding Officer, Central Govt Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, M2 Block, Manoranjan Complex Hyderabad and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: Smt C Vani Reddy Counsel for respondent no.2. Sri A Krishnam Raju The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Writ Petition Nos. 24364 of 2004 and 528 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: Since these two writ petitions are connected, they are being disposed of by this Common Order. W.P. No. 24364 of 2004 was filed, being aggrieved by award made in I.D.No.256 of 2002 dated 22.3.2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad, answering the reference made under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by confirming the order of dismissal and directing the respondent bank to pay 12 months gross wages last drawn by the petitioner to be multiplied by the salary for the month of December, 2000. The reference answered by the Court below, reads as under; “Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Hyderabad in dismissing the services of Sri M.V.Raja Rao, Clerk, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad, is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” Whereas, W P No. 528 of 2005 is filed by the management questioning the very same award in I D No. 256 of 2002 dated 22.3.2004. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as clerk cum typist in the respondent bank w.e.f. 20.9.1976, while that being so, he was issued with a charge sheet on 18.9.2000 alleging certain misconduct. After conducting an enquiry into the said charges, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal dated 30.1.2001. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Union and referred to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court in I D No. 256 of 2002 under Section 10 (1) (d) of the I D Act. Before the Labour Court, neither any oral or documentary evidence was adduced by both the sides, however, on the basis of the material made available, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is just and valid and while considering the merits held that there is any amount of evidence to show that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. However, taking into consideration, the service of 24 years 3 months put in by the petitioner before removal, while confirming the orders of dismissal, directed the bank to pay 12 months wages multiplied by his last drawn salary in December within 30 days from the publication of the award, failing which petitioner will be entitled to simple interest at 6 % per annum. Aggrieved by the said award of the labour Court, the present writ petitions one by the workman and the other by the management of bank were filed. Learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner had put in more than 24 years of continuous service, which was unblemished, further the charges framed against the petitioner are technical in nature apart from trivial and even if they are proved, the punishment of dismissal from service is not warranted, therefore, the disciplinary authority and appellate authority have erred in imposing the punishment of dismissal without considering the provisions of law and the service rules governing the petitioner. Whereas, the learned counsel for respondents Mr A Krishnam Raju, strenuously contended that the misconduct may be for the first time after serving for 24 years but same is grievous in nature and the said single misconduct, which is neither a technical one nor trivial in nature, is sufficient for imposing the major penalty and the management is therefore taken a correct view to dismiss the petitioner from service, which was confirmed by the Labour Court. He has further submitted that the Labour Court ought not to have directed the bank to pay 12 months wages multiplied by his last drawn salary in December within 30 days from the publication of the award, which is nothing but a charity extended by invoking misplaced sympathies. Be that as it may, the fact that the petitioner had put in 24 years of unblemished service, which is not in dispute, however, the allegation against the petitioner is that on 28.7.2000 M/s. Sri Laxmi Tyres Agency,has deposited a sum of Rs. 90,100/- to Current Account No. 860 but by mistake in the cash slip prepared by M/s. Sri Laxmi Tyres Agency, it was mentioned as Rs. 83,100/- and that there was excess cash of Rs.7,000/-, however, the petitioner denies the said allegation and states that though he received only Rs.83,100/-, in order to keep the respect of the bank, he was forced to refund the excess amount of Rs.7,000/-. According to the management, the party has correctly mentioned the notes but in the calculation column they have committed a mistake. That excess amount of Rs.7000/- was reimbursed by the petitioner on 1.8.2000. It appears there was some misconduct on the part of the petitioner, but it was not a case of causing loss to the bank, further on pointing out by the officials of the respondent bank, the petitioner has immediately paid the alleged excess amount of Rs.7,000/-. In such circumstances, particularly keeping in view the past service of petitioner for 24 years, which is unblemished one, I am of the opinion that imposition of ultimate punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate for the charge alleged against the petitioner and the same needs to be modified and petitioners deserves to be imposed with some lesser punishment. Normally, in such cases, this Court remands the matter for reconsideration, but since the alleged incident relates to year 2000 and the litigation is pending for the last about ten years, I am of the opinion that it needs to be given quietus. Hence, the award in I.D.No. 256 of 2002 dated 22.3.2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad is modified and the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner should be treated as compulsory retirement from service and the respondent management is directed to extend all such benefits which are available to the petitioner in accordance with the rules of the bank. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the result, W P No. 24364 of 2004 filed by the petitioner is disposed of and W P No. 528 of 2005 is dismissed. No costs. ____________ C.V. RAMULU,J DATE: 7.2.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Writ Petition Nos. 24364 of 2004 and 528 of 2005 Date: 7.2.2011