IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 1498 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MR. P.K. SUGATHAN, DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., ZONAL OFFICE, ANI SEETHAI HALL, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 006, 2. MR. N.R. ACHAN, (FORMER CHAIRMAN CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.,), NADUVATH SREE SATYA SAI ENCLAVE, PUTHOOR, PALAKKAD. 3. MR. P.C. VARGHESE, (FORMER SPL. OFFICER CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD.,) POTTOKKARAN HOUSE, ELINJIPRA, THRISSUR 680 721. 4. MR. P.V. RAJAN, CHIEF MANAGER, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., CIRCLE OFFICE, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. MR. K.K. VIVEKANANDAN, (FORMER PRINCIPAL, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, LTD., 6/658, KALATHIL HOUSE, KUNDUVARA ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR 20. 6. MR. C.J. JACON, DGM, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ST. MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR 680 020 7. MR. VENKITTARAMAN, CHAIRMAN CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ST. MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR 680 020 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN WPC.1498/09 2 RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GEETHA RAMACHANDRAN, (FORMER CHIEF MANAGER OF THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK), 39/3482 REVATHY, MANIKKATHU CROSS ROAD, VALANJAMBALAM, KOCHI -16. 2. KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION, VAN ROSS JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -34. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.1498/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.12.07 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 9.2.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.2.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.1498 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT 1.The first respondent was an employee of the Catholic Syrian Bank which is a scheduled bank. She faced disciplinary proceedings on different grounds. Ultimately, she was removed from service. Being an employee in the administration of the supervisory cadre of a scheduled bank, she could not have invoked the jurisdiction of the labour court, she not being a workman or even in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas [2003 (3) KLT 876]. But, she could have sued the bank challenging the decision before the competent civil court 2.The first respondent, without seeking remedy as noticed above, moved the Kerala Women's Commission constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Women's Commission Act WPC.1498/09. 2 and sought relief. The Commission, going by its order Ext.P3, virtually sat as if it is making a judicial review of the decision of the bank. The alleged occurrences or otherwise, and the sustainability of the findings in the disciplinary proceedings, including enquiry, have been enquired into by the Commission. The allegation against the delinquent first respondent were in the realm of financial improprieties, though her learned counsel says that they were not of huge magnitude. Whatever that be, there is no attribute against her by the management which would tend to suggest that the fact that the respondent is a lady had anything to do at all, either as regards the charges or regarding the findings. 3.However, taking the view that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated and bad, the Commission says that the first respondent was the only lady Chief Manager in the service of the Catholic Syrian Bank and therefore, it appears that the Commission took the view that the bank imposed the punishment of WPC.1498/09. 3 dismissal from service simply on the reason that she seems to be a lady. Arbitrariness, perversity and other grounds on which this finding of the Commission is attacked necessarily stands. Equally, the finding of the Commission that the orders of dismissal is clear discrimination on the ground of sex on the basis of Article 15 of the Constitution is totally misconceived. The Commission was totally without authority to say that the first respondent was an asset to the Catholic Syrian Bank for about 30 years. The jurisdiction of the Commission in terms of the Act and the sweep of its powers or need for its institutional existence would not take within their sweep, matters which are purely in the realm of service discipline, labour matters etc, unless of course, in cases where the women employee faced situation of unfair practice referable to a ground of sex. The conclusion of the Commission that the dismissal of the first respondent from service of the bank is an unfair practice against her on the ground of sex is wholly unfounded, unsustainable and is hence liable to be quashed. WPC.1498/09. 4 4.Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the first respondent stated that the Commission had only requested the Board of Directors of the bank to reinstate the employee after setting aside the decision of the intra-institutional appellate authority. But, a reading of the last paragraph of the impugned Ext.P3 would show that though the word 'request' is used, the immediate supporting reason in the same sentence is that the said request is being made as all the charges levelled against the officer are baseless and are wrong and without any bonafides. Having found that the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction, Ext.P3 is quashed, however, clarifying that this judgment will not stand in the way of the first respondent seeking any relief from the bank in relation to the action taken against her. Obviously, neither this judgment nor the impugned decision of the Commission would stand in the way WPC.1498/09. 5 of the bank considering any request of the first respondent as the case may be. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.31/05.