SATARA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO Vs. SUBHASH KASHINATH MULLAY, ZENDE CHOWK, AT AND POST PATAN DIST. SATARA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The Petitioners are a District Central Cooperative Bank having their head office at Satara. They have more than 100 branches in Satara District and employed about 1500 persons. The branches of the Bank are spread over mainly in the rural areas of Satara District. Patan is one such place where they have a small branch. The first respondent-workman was employed as a Peon in the branch at Patan sometime in the year 1973. Admittedly, the employees of the petitioners are governed by the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 as a result of which the service conditions of the employees of the petitioners are contained in the Standing Orders settled under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the first respondent was served with a charge-sheet alleging that while working as a Peon at their branch at Patan in the year 1973, and Gurav who wanted to obtain loan from the Bank by pledging a gold ornament approached the first respondent. The first respondent, instead of keeping the ornament in' the bank, kept it with himself and gave a loan of Rs. 100.00 to the said Gurav. It was further alleged in the charge-sheet that the appellant did not return the ornament till Dec., 1975 though Gurav had returned the loan amount of Rs. 100.00 somewhere during the Diwali days of 1973. The said Gurav then complained to the Bank on Oct. 19, 1976. There was also an allegation of a scuffle between the first respondent and the said Gurav somewhere in the compound of the State Bank of India on this transaction. Another charge against the first respondent was that he had obtained casual leave on 7.3.1977 and 9.3.1977 and got it extended upto 9.3.1977 and thereafter instead of resuming duty he obtained medical leave for 15 days by giving a false reason. A domestic enquiry was held against the first respondent into the above said allegations and on consideration of the report of the enquiry officer holding the first respondent guilty of the charges levelled against him, the petitioners dismissed him from services effective from June 30, 1977.

(3.) The first respondent challenged his dismissal order by filing application No.55 of 1977 in the Second Labour Court at Kolhapur. The said application was contested by the petitioners bank by filing a detailed written statement justifying their action. The learned Labour Judge by his order dated March 13, 1991 held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the first respondent was fair and proper and thereafter by an order dated April 23, 1991 dismissed the application of the first respondent holding that the charges levelled against him were duly proved and that the punishment was not disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved. The orders of the learned Labour Judge (second respondent) were challenged in Appeal before the Industrial Court at Kolhapur, being Appeal (IC) No.4 of 1981. The Industrial Court (third respondent) by his judgment and order dated Jan. 29, 1985 held that the order passed by the learned Labour Judge dismissing the application of the first respondent was not in accordance with law and accordingly set the same aside and directed the petitioners-hank to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service and full back wages effective from June 30, 1977.