( 1 ) THE petition challenges the orders passed by the labour Court on 10. 7. 1997 and by the Industrial Court in the Appeal on 15. 1. 1998. The Labour Court had partly allowed the application filed by the respondent workman u/s 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The labour Court had rejected the respondents prayer for reinstatement but had granted him backwages for the period from 16. 5. 1995 to 24. 4. 1996. The Industrial court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent i. e. Appeal (BIR) No. 8 of 1997, partly and has directed the petitioner bank to reinstate the respondent in his original post with continuity of service and half the backwages. When the petition was admitted, the order directing reinstatement was stayed. However, the petitioner was directed to pay the backwages awarded by the Industrial Court.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a registered bank under the banking Regulations Act and also under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Being a cooperative bank, the provisions of the Bombay industrial Relations Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as BIR Act) are applicable to it.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was employed with the bank from 2. 4. 1992. He was confirmed after one years service. On 23. 12. 1993, the regular staff manning the cash counter was on casual leave. The respondent was directed to officiate as the receiving cashier on that day with the assistance of one P. S. Nanivadekar. At the close of the banking hours on 23. 12. 1993 it was found that the cash in hand did not tally with the entries and there was a shortfall of Rs. 49,995/ -. According to the petitioner, Respondent No. 1 was informed of the consequences of the shortfall and he therefore, submitted a letter on the same day accepting his responsibility for the shortage in cash. He added further that he would be responsible in case the cash was not recovered. According to the petitioner, the members of the family of Respondent No. 1 went to the bank at 11. 30 pm and made good the shortfall. A confidential report was submitted by the Branch Manager to his superiors indicating that the conduct of respondent No. 1 was suspicious and that it warranted action against him.

( 4 ) ON 7. 1. 1994, the petitioner received a complaint from one of their accountholders, Laxman V. Jadhav. He complained that he had given a withdrawal slip for rs. 15,000/- to Respondent No. 1 for opening a fixed deposit account in his name by transferring the amount from his savings account. According to Jadhav, although his savings bank account indicated that Rs. 15000/- had been withdrawn, the term deposit was not made by respondent No. 1 and no receipt was issued to him in respect of the term deposit.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 was issued a notice on 10. 1. 1994 suspending him and calling upon him to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him for the embezzlement of two separate amounts, being Rs. 49995/-on 23. 12. 1993 and another amount of Rs. 15000/- from jadhav. A chargesheet alleging that he had committed misconducts under standing order 23 (iv) 5, 13 and 16 was issued to Respondent No. 1. An enquiry was held against him. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 23. 3. 1995 holding that the charges of misconduct had been proved. Not being impressed with the objections raised and comments of the respondent on the report of the enquiry officer, the petitioner discharged respondent No. 1 from service w. e. f. 16. 4. 1995 and paid him one months notice pay.

( 6 ) AN approach letter was submitted by Respondent no. 1 u/s 42 of the BIR Act to the petitioner bank. As the petitioner refused to concede to the demand contained in the approach letter, Respondent No. 1 preferred an application u/s 78 of the BIR Act before the Labour Court. The case of the Respondent No. 1 was that the enquiry held against was not fair and proper and that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. His contentions were accepted by the Labour court and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document