IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2725 of 2009 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28839/2006 DATED 18.3.2009 .................... APPELLANT/THIRD PARTY --------------------------------------- S.K.BALAKRISHNAN,AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.S.K.KOMAN, RESIDING AT BELLIKOTH, AJANUR.P.O,KANHANGAD, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & WRIT PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, KASARAGODE DISTRICT SAHAKERANA BANK LTD, KASARAGODE.P.O. 2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, KANNUR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SECRETARY,ALL KERALA BANK EMPLOYEES FEDERATION,KASARAGODE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, KASARAGODE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2725 of 2009 & I.A.No.1201 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. The original delinquent who was represented in the writ petition through All Kerala Bank Employees Federation, Kasaragode District Committee, has filed the present leave application to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18th March, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.28839 of 2006. 2. In the writ petition, the prayer of the appellant through the petitioner Employees Federation was to quash Exts.P2 and P3, preliminary and final awards, passed by the Labour Court holding the appellant responsible for the shortage of Rs.50000/- in the cash. Undisputedly, the appellant was working as Shroff in the Kasaragode District Co-operative Bank and at the time of closure of accounts on 24.11.1995, a sum of Rs.50000/- was found to be short. On thorough enquiry, though the W.A.No.2725 of 2009 - 2 - shortage was noticed, in view of the recouping of the amount by the appellant, the punishment awarded was only reversion to the post of Peon for a period of two years. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition was filed. Taking into consideration the various aspects, the punishment has been further reduced by the learned Single Judge recommending to impose a lesser punishment of barring one or two increments with or without cumulative effect to meet the ends of justice. In the review petition filed by the appellant, it was left open to the Board of Directors of the first respondent Bank to pass appropriate orders in the light of the finding of the learned Single Judge. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, now it is contended by the appellant that, in the meanwhile as the appellant had retired, the writ petitioner Employees Federation cannot represent him and as such he may be granted leave to file an appeal. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the leave application is allowed. W.A.No.2725 of 2009 - 3 - 5. We have heard learned counsel on the merits of the appeal. Taking into consideration the undisputed fact that on the relevant date it was the appellant who was in charge of the cash, found undisputedly missing and later, it is he who has recouped the same by arranging money from outside sources as admitted by him, clearly show that he was guilty of at least temporary misappropriation or total negligence or carelessness in duty. In view of this finding, in our view, the learned Single Judge has shown enough leniency to the appellant, so far as the punishment is concerned. 6. At this stage, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the Manager who was also held liable along with the appellant has been punished only with censure, parity should have been exercised by the learned Single Judge. We do not agree with this contention. The Manager has been punished for not discharging his duty properly, i.e. keeping overall control over the affairs of the Bank. But, so far as the appellant is concerned, primarily it was he who was in charge of the W.A.No.2725 of 2009 - 4 - money and it is from his custody it has disappeared though for a temporary period, and as such, the criteria for punishment of both the Manager and the appellant would be different. In view of the same, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in the writ appeal and hence the same is rejected. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns/vku.