1 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 34 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2973 OF 2006 Kishor Narayan Vartak .. Appellant Versus The Sangli Zilla Kamgar Coop. Bank Ltd. and others .. Respondents Mr. V. P. Vaidya for the appellant Mr. A. V. Bukhari a/w Burhan Bukhari for the respondents. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 12 th March, 2010 P.C.: 1. This intra Court appeal arises from the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ petition No. 2973 of 2006 dated 11 th December, 2006. 2. The appellant was in the employment of the respondent Bank as a Cashier and he came to be charge sheeted on 20 th March, 1989 on the allegations that he encashed five cheques amounting to Rs.79,466/- which were not signed by the person who had issued those cheques for encashment i.e. Lt. Shri D. B. Chavan who was the Chairman of the Bank. Departmental enquiry was conducted against him and based on the Enquiry Officer’s findings, he came to be dismissed from services by way 2 of punishment, in terms of the order dated 1.1.1990. The said order came to be challenged before the Labour Court in Application (BIR) No. 55 of 1990 and the learned Judge of the Labour Court, by his order dated 15 th January, 2005 was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal and granted reinstatement with full back wages. This order passed by the Labour Court came to be challenged by filing Appeal (IC) No. 90 of 2005 before the Industrial Court and by his judgment and oder dated 16.9.2006, the learned Member of the the Industrial Court, was pleased to allow the appeal and the order passed by the Labour Court came to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order of dismissal was confirmed. Hence, the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge have recorded concurrent findings against the appellant and held that the charges levelled against him were duly proved and the punishment imposed was not grossly disproportionate to the nature of the charges and the Labour Court had committed a serious error in interfering with the order of punishment. 3. With the assistance of Mr. Vaidya, we have gone through the reasons set out in the order passed by the industrial Court as well as the learned Single Judge, in which the admissions made by the appellant during the course of domestic enquiry were reproduced and relied upon. The appellant admitted that when the cheques reached him for encashment, the Chairman was present in the Bank and the appellant 3 did not make any effort to obtain his signature before the cash was handed over to him. The Bank sustained monetary loss of Rs.79,446/- and the prescribed procedure for encashment of cheques was not followed by the appellant. The five cheques at Exh. C-16 to Exh. C-20 were placed on record. He also admitted that alongwith him, the concerned branch manager was also charge-sheeted and the enquiry was conducted against both of them. The manager has also been dismissed from service. The appellant admitted the charges levelled against him and prayed for reinstatement. 4. This substantive evidence was overlooked by the Labour Court and it committed a serious error in law in holding that the charge was not proved, though the enquiry was conducted in keeping with the principles of natural justice. The view taken by the Industrial court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference in this appeal and, therefore, this appeal must fail at the threshold. 5. The appeal is hereby dismissed in limine. (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)