- (1.) The facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that respondent was pasted as a Gun man in the office of the appellant-Bank at Taran Taran in the year 1991 and he was involved in a case F.I.R. No. 12 of 1991 registered under section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Taran Taran. He was tried by Additional Judge, Designated Court, Amritsar and vide judgment dated 20.1.1991, he was acquitted of the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt. The respondent had been paid arrears for the period from 25.10.1997 to 18.8.1998, but the appellant- Bank did not pay wages for the remaining period from 9.3.1991 to 24.10.1997 and in order to secure the wages of that period, he knocked at the door of the lower court by filing a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.2005. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.2005 reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court. The appellant-Bank had no other option but to file the second appeal before this Court challenging the findings recorded by the lower appellate authority.
(2.) In order to avoid repetition, the other facts are not required to be reproduced herein inasmuch as, they have been recapitulated in the judgments on the courts below.
(3.) It is an admitted case of the parties that service conditions of the respondent are governed by Bipartite Settlement and in order to arrive at the right conclusion, it is necessary to reproduce the Settlement, which reads as under : " 19.3 (a) When in the opinion of the management, an employee has committed an offence, unless he be otherwise prosecuted, the bank may take steps to prosecute him or get him prosecuted and in such a case he may also be suspended. (b) If he be convicted, he may be dismissed with effect from the date of his conviction or be given any lesser form of punishment as mentioned in clause 19.6 below. (c) If he be acquitted, it shall be open to the management to proceed against him under the provisions set out below in Clauses 19.11 and 19.12 infra relating to discharges. However, in the event of the management deciding after enquiry not to continue him in service, he shall be liable only for termination of service with three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. And he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension, if any, and shall be entitled to the full pay and allowances minus such subsistence allowance as he has drawn and to all other privileges for the period of suspension provided that if he be acquitted by being given the benefit of doubt he may be paid such portion of such pay and allowances as the management may deem proper, and the period of his absence shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the management so direct. (d) If he prefers an appeal or revision application against his conviction and is acquitted, in case he had already been dealt with as above and he applies to the management for reconsideration of his case, the management shall review his case and may either reinstate him or proceed against him under the provisions set below in clauses 19.11 and 19.12 infra relating to discharge, and the provision set out above as to pay, allowances and the period of suspension will apply, the period up-to-date for which full pay and allowances have not been drawn being treated as one of suspension. In the event of the management deciding, after inquiry not to continue him in service, the employee shall be liable only for termination with three months' pay and allowances as in lieu of notice, as directed above." The above quoted provision clearly spells out that the bank is authorized to initiate steps for the prosecution of an employee if it is of the opinion that the employee has committed an offence. Sub-clause (b) provides for the effect on conviction. Sub-clause (C) spells out for the action to be initiated against an employee in the event of his being acquitted of the charges. As per the provisions aforesaid, management is at liberty to proceed against an employee, as per provisions of clauses 19.11 and 19.12 relating to discharge. It provides further that after the inquiry, the management may decide not to continue him in service and as such, he shall be liable for termination of service with three months' pay and allowances in lieu of notice. The provision contained under this agreement further provides as to how the period of suspension is to be treated and wages are to be paid to the employee. In the event of an employee being acquitted, he shall be entitled to full pay and allowances minus subsistence allowance as he had already drawn and to all other privileges for the period of suspension. It is further mentioned therein that if an employee has been acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, he may be paid such portion of such pay and allowances and the period of his absence shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless tine management so directs.;