The Industrial Tribunal can modify punitive measures if it determines that an employee was treated discriminatorily compared to similarly situated employees, according to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is aggrieved by the Award dated 07.08.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court-II, Rajendra Bhawan, New Delhi in ID No. 111/2005 titled as Suresh Chand Vs Zonal Manager, Bank of India ("impugned Award"). Vide the impugned Award, the learned Industrial Tribunal was pleased to direct the reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages and continuity of service and all other consequential benefits after stopping all increments for 7 years.

Facts relevant for the consideration of the present Writ Petition are as follows:

2. The Respondent/Workman was working as clerk cum Cashier at the Jhadewalan Branch of the Petitioner Bank from 31.01.2000 to 29.08.2002. While working at the Jhadewalan Branch, the Respondent/Workman applied for a loan of Rs.1 Lakh from the Nationalized Bank Employees SE Cooperative NA Thrift and Cooperative Society ("Society"). Apparently, there was default in repayment of loan and hence the Society contacted the Petitioner Bank and asked to deduct the overdue amount from the salary of the Respondent Workman. The Society further forwarded the loan documents submitted by the Respondent workman to the Petitioner Bank. On perusal of the said loan document, the Petitioner Bank realized that the Respondent/workman forged the signature of the Branch Manager Mr.K.S Mehra in a `no objection certificate' dated 26.01.2002 to obtain the loan from the Society.

3. Hence the Respondent/Workman was served with a Charge Sheet dated 08.09.2003. After conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 15.12.2003 holding the charges against the Respondent/Workman as `proved'. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice to the Respondent/Workman proposing the penalty of discharge from service. After giving personal hearing to the Respondent, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 24.01.2004 confirmed the penalty of `discharge with superannuation benefits and without disqualification from future employment in terms of Para 6(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.04.2002' on the Respondent Workman.

4. The Respondent/Workman challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority before the Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 07.05.2004, the Appellate Authority rejected the said Appeal.

5. The Respondent/Workman raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. After the failure of the conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government referred the following reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether discharging the services of the Workman Sh. Suresh Chand from the Management of Bank of India is just, fair and legal? If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled to and from which date?"

6. The Respondent/Workmen filed his statement of Claim alleging that the Petitioner management conducted the domestic enquiry not in accordance with the prescribed procedure and also without following the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner/Management filed the written statement pointing out that the Respondent/Workman has been inflicted with a penalty of `discharge with superannuation benefits' after following due process of law. The Domestic enquiry conducted by the Petitioner/Management was in accordance with law and the Respondent/Workman has been given opportunity to represent himself at every stage.

7. Both the parties led their respective evidence to substantiate their claims. The learned Tribunal, after examining the entire record concluded that the Petitioner/Management conducted the domestic enquiry after granting sufficient opportunity