IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28422 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.V.VELAYUDHAN ,S/O. VALLON, AGED 51 YEARS, ARIYAMPURAM HOUSE, CHERUVALOOR P.O.,KORATTY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, MUMBAI 400 021. 2. ASST.GENERAL MANAGER (IR) UNION BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, MUMBAI 400 021. 3. CHIEF MANAGER (HRM) DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, HRM DEPARETMENT, UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHENNAI. 4. SENIOR MANAGER (HRM)/ENQUIRY OFFICER HRM DEPARETMENT, UNION BANK OF INDIA,CHENNAI. 5. K.V.SUBRAMANIAN, MANAGER (HRM)/ PRESENTING OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHALAKKUDY BRANCH. BY SC SRI.A.S.P. KURUP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).28422/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is facing disciplinary action in the Bank. He moved an application for permission to engage the services of a legally trained person. It has been met with Ext.P6, which is to the following effect:- A representative of a registered Trade Union of Bank Employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry OR Where the employees is not a member if any Trade Union of Bank Employees on the aforesaid date, by a representative of a registered Trade Union of Employees of the Bank in which he is employed. OR At the request of the said Union by a representative of the State Federation of All India Organization to which such union is affiliated. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank also. W.P.(C).28422/2008 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out with reference to the bipartite settlement, that there is no prohibition against the delinquent employee engaging services of a legally trained person. But in Ext.P6, petitioner's request has not been considered on the premise that there is no legal conflicts/issues in this case. This may be correct. But taking note of the fact that the fifth respondent seems to be a legally trained person, I am of the view that the Bank should consider the request of the petitioner on merits. 4. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to re-consider the petitioner's request in the light of the observations made above and take appropriate decision, before further proceeding with the enquiry. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs