2016 Supreme(Ker) 303

In the High Court of Kerala
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Anil K. Narendran, JJ.
M.P. Ashok Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State Bank of Travancore Zonal Office, Calicut, Rep. by The Deputy General Manager & Others - Respondents
WA. No. 2141 of 2015 In WP(C) No. 29093 of 2005
Decided On : 13-07-2016

The proven misconduct committed by the appellant was an instance contrary to honesty and good morals, which is quite unbecoming of a Bank employee, and the action on the part of the management Bank in forfeiting Gratuity was perfectly justified, being in conformity with the statutory provision i.e. under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.

Headnote:

misconduct - dismissal of Bank employee - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 11A - [MISCONDUCT] - [Dismissal of Bank employee] - [Industrial Disputes Act - Section 11A] - The court discussed the proven misconduct of the appellant, tampering with the registers of the Bank and Passbooks of the customers, and whether the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate with the gravity of the proven misconduct. The court also considered whether the proven misconduct amounts to any act involving 'moral turpitude' and whether the forfeiture/denial of Gratuity is justified in law. The court referred to various Supreme Court decisions to establish that the power under Section 11A of the I.D. Act is not to be invoked as a matter of course and that the said power cannot be invoked quite casually, as a matter of course. The court concluded that the proven misconduct committed by the appellant was an instance contrary to honesty and good morals, which is quite unbecoming of a Bank employee, and that the action on the part of the management Bank in forfeiting Gratuity was perfectly justified, being in conformity with the statutory provision i.e. under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, an 'ex-service man', was employed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in a Bank. He committed certain misconducts involving money transactions, effecting fraudulent entries in the passbook of the customers and registers of the Bank, upon which disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of all the charges and proposed the punishment of dismissal. The Labour Court held that the worker was not able to point out any error or mistake as to the proceedings in the enquiry and he was not able to point out any instance of violation of the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court found that the appellant worker was guilty of charges 1 and 2 levelled against him in relation to the fraudulent transactions. The Labour Court held that the proven misconduct was 'not of such a serious nature' warranting extreme penalty of dismissal from service and ordered the worker to be reinstated with 50% backwages.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the punishment of dismissal ordered by the learned single Judge was perfectly within the four walls of the law. The court also found that the action on the part of the management Bank in forfeiting Gratuity was perfectly justified, being in conformity with the statutory provision i.e. under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the forfeiture of the provident fund contribution effected by the Bank.

Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to various Supreme Court decisions to establish that the power under Section 11A of the I.D. Act is not to be invoked as a matter of course and that the said power cannot be invoked quite casually, as a matter of course. The court concluded that the proven misconduct committed by the appellant was an instance contrary to honesty and good morals, which is quite unbecoming of a Bank employee, and that the action on the part of the management Bank in forfeiting Gratuity was perfectly justified, being in conformity with the statutory provision i.e. under Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.

Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the forfeiture of the provident fund contribution effected by the Bank. The challenge against the verdict passed by the learned single Judge and against the forfeiture of 'Gratuity' was repelled.