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 MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 WA.No. 536 of 2009 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28815/2006 Dated 30/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT/2D RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- A.BALAKRISHNAN, SANGEETHA, AMBALAPADY, THULLISSERY ROAD, WANDOOR PO, MALAPPURAM-679 328. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, PB NO.25, KOZHIKODE-673 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER. 2. LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.536 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. The writ petition was filed by the employer Bank challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant was working as clerk-cum-cashier at the Manjeri Branch of the first respondent Bank and was found to have committed various misconducts including fraudulent withdrawal of money from the account, forgery of signatures, destruction of withdrawal forms and misappropriation of funds. As these acts amounted to misconduct as defined in clause 19.5(d) of the First Bipartite Settlement of 1996, memo of charges and charge sheet were issued to the appellant and after due enquiry, he was dismissed from service as six of the charges against the employee were held to be proved. Aggrieved by the same, he W.A.No.536 of 2009. - 2 - approached the Labour Court. Though the Labour Court in its award held that the charges are proved, found that the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and as such directed the Bank to reinstate the employee without backwages and seniority protection. Aggrieved by the same, the Bank approached this Court in the impugned writ petition. 2. Considering the entire materials placed before Court as well as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge found that once the charges are held to be proved, the leniency shown by the Labour Court was incorrect and illegal and as such reversing the order, confirmed the punishment of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the appellant worked for nearly 20 years and it was only first time that he committed such mistakes for which he had suffered dismissal, should be shown some leniency by converting the W.A.No.536 of 2009. - 3 - order of dismissal to discharge so that the appellant will be entitled to terminal benefits. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Bank vehemently contended that as the charges are very serious in nature and have been proved, no mercy can be shown to the appellant. 3. Even on reconsideration of the entire materials, we find that the Labour Court has found that the charges against the appellant are proved. In our view, once the relationship between the banker and customer which is of trust is strained and as the employees of the bank especially working as cashier are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of the customer, and as now established that not only the appellant misappropriated amount but also used forgery as a weapon to commit the act, we do not find any ground even to show mercy to such an erring employee. Hence we find no merit in the writ appeal and it is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may W.A.No.536 of 2009. - 4 - be permitted to approach the Bank to show some mercy by filing a representation. If such a representation is filed, it is open to the Bank to consider the same, but this should not be treated as a direction from this Court, but only as a request on behalf of the appellant. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns