- (1.) The subject-matter of challenge, in this writ petition, by the employer, is an award dated 23rd February 2009 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal at Calcutta holding the workman not guilty of the charge under Clause 19.5(j) of the bipartite settlement.The Tribunal has consequently set aside the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and has directed reinstatement with 50% of the back wages. The workman has made a counter-claim seeking payment of 100% back wages.
(2.) The facts and circumstances of the case briefly are stated as follows: The workman Shri Anajn Kumar Lahiri, a clerical staff, was employed by the petitioner-bank in the year 1971. The petitioner Indian bank introduced a credit card scheme on 15th April 1988. On 24th August 1996 the workman applied for a credit card which was duly sanctioned with a spending limit of Rs. 20,000/-. After the credit card was made functional in September 1996, the workman, it appears, used the card quite lavishly, considering his station in life, in meeting bills of the bars and restaurants. On 4th October 1996 the workman lodged a complaint with the Jadavpur Police Station stating, inter alia, that he had been trapped by anti-social elements who had been threatening him of dire consequences including kidnapping of his minor daughter on the way to her school unless they were entertained by him in hotels and restaurants of their choice. A copy of the complaint dated 4th October 1996 was also endorsed to the Chief Manager, Bank of India. On5th October 1996 the workman wrote a letter to the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, requesting him to cancel the credit card issued to him considering that he had fallen prey to the anti-social elements. Neither the police nor the bank appear to have taken the complaint of the workman seriously. The resultant effect was that during the period between 12th September 1996 and 20th February 1997 the credit card was used on as many as 126 occasions in meeting bills of the restaurants and hotels including five star hotels, for the major part of it. After 20th February 1997 the credit card appears to have been used only on 27th March 1998 in meeting two bills of a hotel. The bank has disclosed letters dated 10th January 1997, 27th January 1997, 5th February 1997 and 7th February 1997 calling upon the workman to pay up the dues. The letter dated 7th February 1997 contained the following significant ultimatum: Hence, you are advised to pay the entire amount of TOD with interest immediately otherwise it will be viewed by us seriously and you may be liable for discipilnary action as per rule. 2. On 13th November 1997 a charge sheet was issued to the workman alleging that he had misused the India Card issued on 24th August 1996 and had incurred liability to the extent of Rs. 2, 11,760.15 paisa as at 30th September 1997 and failed to repay the same inspite of reminders. The aforesaid act of the workman was considered to be a gross misconduct under para 19.5(j) which reads as follows: doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank or gross negligence involving or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss.
(3.) An enquiry was conducted wherein he was found guilty of the aforesaid charge and an order of dismissal was passed on 31st March 1998. An appeal preferred by the workman was dismissed by an order dated 7th August 1998. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal by way a writ petition which culminated in an order dated 20th November 2003 by which the matter was relegated to the Industrial Tribunal. On 14th June 2004 a reference was made by the Central Government. The issue formulated was as follows: Whether the action of the management of Bank of India (Eastern Zone) 5 B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata-700001 in dismissing Shri Anjan Kumar Lahiri, Accounts Clerk from the service is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?;