1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.537 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No.3250 of 2001 [decided] Bank of Baroda, Regional Office (V & M Region), Dharampeth, Nagpur. .... Appellant. Versus 1. Prabhakar Baburao Bokde, aged about 45 years, occupation business, resident of Gupte Chowk, Sakkardara Road, Chitnavispura, Nagpur-440 002. 2. The Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No.II, Bombay. .... Respondents. ***** Mr. C.S. Samudra, Adv., for the appellants. Mr. V.V. Gaikwad, Adv., for respondent No.1. ***** CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. Date : 04th March,2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A.H. Joshi, J]: 2 1. Admit. Learned Adv. Mr. R.V. Gaikwad waives service for respondent no.1. Appeal is taken up for final hearing by consent. 2. This is an appeal by the employer-Bank. 3. The Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge did not find favour with the employer's plea. 4. Admittedly, it is a case of misconduct, where the respondent no.1 was charged for being instrumental to identification by Mr. H.L. Mishra to one Mr. Pethe for opening of an account. 5. In Mr. Pethe's newly opened account, only one cheque was deposited. It is alleged that said cheque was returned by respondent no.1 in exchange of a counterfoil of the deposit of said cheque, which was destroyed by the respondent no.1. It is further alleged that this act was done by the respondent no.1 though said work did not pertain to his assignment. 6. Here is a case where the cheque is returned and the counterfoil, which constitutes acknowledgment of deposit, is taken back and destroyed. On the very face of it, there is nothing foul in returning the cheque because it was post-dated, 3 particularly when even according to appellant, the counterfoil was recovered and destroyed. 7. It is not the employer's case that the cheque was returned without seeking return of that acknowledgment. Had the case been of this type, the account holder may have been equipped with a right of civil action against the banker. 8. It is a patent case where the charge was for a misconduct as to the irregularity of being instrumental for identification of a person not known to one who identifies. This charge has failed, since sole witness of the incident, i.e., Shri H.L. Mishra, did not support the Bank before the Tribunal. 9. Even if said charge is treated as technically proved, it turns out to be a case of misconduct unworthy of a major punishment or penalty of dismissal. 10. It is in this background, the Tribunal did not find favour with the employer's plea and granted relief of reinstatement and back wages, which has been confirmed by learned Single Judge. 11. It is not shown or demonstrated that the findings are erroneous, muchless perverse. 4 12. The last point argued before us is relating to Management's prerogative of punishment. 13. It is clear that by virtue of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even if the punishment is found matching with the rules, but the Tribunal considers it to be harsh. The Tribunal would be justice in interfering. 14. On the facts of the case, the misconduct – subject-matter was not such which would attract a major penalty of dismissal. 15. In the result, even without recourse to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal was competent to grant reinstatement, which has been done. 16. In the circumstances, appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear respective costs. JUDGE JUDGE -0-0-0-0- |hedau|