IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 810 of 2009(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.28839/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER --------------------------------------- S.K.BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.S.K.KOMAN,RESIDING AT BELLIKOTH, AJANUR (P.O),KANHANGAD,KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS & WRIT PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, KASARGODE DISTRICT SAHAKARANA BANK LTD., KASARGODE P.O. 2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT,KANNUR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY, ALL KERALA BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT COMMITTEE,KASARGODE. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No. 810 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 28839 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 ORDER The Enquiry Officer appointed by the Management of the 1st respondent-Bank awarded a punishment to the delinquent employee Sri.S.K.Balakrishnan under Section 24(1) (c)of the service conditions of the 1st respondent-bank by reverting him to the post of peon/watchman/Lift operator for a period of two years and further ordered that the suspension period will be treated as eligible leave. This Court by judgment dated 18.3.2009 in W.P.(C) No.28839 of 2006, interfered with the sentence imposed so, held that “barring of one or two increments with or without cumulative effect will serve the purpose” and directed the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent-Bank to pass appropriate orders in the light of the findings in the said judgment within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment. It is also pointed out by this Court that the final award passed by the Labour Court(Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.28839 of 2006 ) is modified to the said extent. This Court observed as above, after finding that the punishment imposed by the Enquiry Officer is little harsh and that the delinquent employee deserves a lesser punishment while compared with the punishment imposed on the delinquent Manager of the 1st respondent- R.P.No. 810 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 28839 of 2006 -2- Bank. This Court never intended a reduction in the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the delinquent employee. The 1st respondent -Bank is free in deciding the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the delinquent employee by considering the seriousness of the offence committed by the delinquent employee. It is made clear that the observation that “barring of one or two increment with or without cumulative effect will serve the purpose” was not intended to be acted upon but suggested as a simple example of lesser punishment. Since the said observation is seriously assailed by the review petitioner(delinquent employee) in this review petition, the same is deleted from the judgment. The 1st respondent-Bank is free to impose on the delinquent employee any punishment lesser than what was imposed vide Ext.P3 final award in the said writ petition. The review petition is disposed of as above. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es.