IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to modify the workman's punishment from dismissal to removal with benefits, emphasizing the necessity of integrity in banking and the consequences of misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

The employer as well as the workman challenge the Award in ID No.8/2015 dated 02.05.2022 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam in these writ petitions. The workman has filed W.P.(C) No.21130/2023 and the employer has filed W.P.(C) No.27248/2023.

2. In W.P.(C) No.21130/2023, the petitioner-workman states that he joined services under the employer Bank as a Bankman on 01.04.1997. He was suspended from service pending enquiry on 19.11.2012. Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) No.21130/2023 is the chargesheet. Though the petitioner workman submitted reply, the employer proceeded to conduct domestic enquiry. The workman examined six witnesses and marked eight documents. However, Enquiry Officer, by his report dated 22.05.2013, found that the petitioner had accepted illegal gratification from the customers and also borrowed money from customers and outsiders, resulting in complaints before various authorities. The Enquiry Officer also concluded that the petitioner had misbehaved with a consumer.

3. The employer accepted the enquiry report and imposed upon the workman punishment of 'dismissal without notice'. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the dismissal order was rejected. The petitioner therefore raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam, which considered the dispute, found that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was in a fair and proper manner and following the principles of natural justice.

4. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to consider the correctness of the findings of the enquiry officer and the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner. By Award dated 02.05.2022 in ID No.8/2015, the Tribunal found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority are not in accordance with the evidence available. However, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that it is not possible to state that there is no evidence at all. The Tribunal held that direct involvement of the petitioner is not established in the enquiry. However, there is evidence to show the indirect involvement of the petitioner in all the charges levelled against him. On these premises, the Tribunal modified the punishment of dismissal without notice and imposed the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits.

5. The petitioner-workman in W.P.(C) No.21130/2023 contended that Ext.P2 Award is highly illegal and arbitrary. Having found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer as perverse, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the enquiry and directed the 2nd respondent to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate the charge. Instead, the Tribunal converted the punishment of 'dismissal without notice' to 'removal from service with superannuation benefits'.

6. The workman further contended that there was no material on record for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the workman had indirect involvement in the allegations raised against him in the chargesheet. The Tribunal failed to consider as to what extent the petitioner is involved in the allegations. The Tribunal also failed to consider whether such involvement warrants the extreme punishment of termination from service. The Award in ID No.8/2015 is therefore liable to be set aside, contended the counsel for the workman.

7. The employer-Federal Bank Limited has filed W.P. (C) No.27248/2023 challenging the very same Award. The counsel for the employer submitted that the workman has been found to play as a middleman for the customers to obtain loan from the Bank. There were sufficient materials to conclude that the workman has been receiving illegal gratification from the Bank's consumers. The workman thus indulged in very serious misconduct compromising integrity and honesty. Though there were eye witnesses to evidence that the petitioner has received bribe, those witnesses were prevailed upon by the workman and at