SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 66134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FEDERAL BANK EMPLOYEES’ UNION (AIBEA) – Appellant
Versus
THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED – Respondent
WP(C) 5105/2024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 21526 OF 2022 PETITIONER:

THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.

HEAD OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683101, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT (HR), BY ADVS.

LATHA ANAND M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON K.R.PRAMOTH KUMAR S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL) RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI B SIDHARTH P.S.

BHARATH MURALI RESPONDENTS:

1 THE GENERAL SECRETARY, FEDERAL BANK EMPLOYEES UNION (AIBEA), CENTRAL OFFICE,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683101.

2 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682036.

BY ADVS.

C.ANIL KUMAR A.K.PREETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).5105/2024, THE COURT ON

19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 5105 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

FEDERAL BANK EMPLOYEES' UNION (AIBEA)

CENTRAL OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY - 683101 BY ADVS.

C.ANIL KUMAR A.K.PREETHA DEVIKA MOHAN RESPONDENTS:

1 THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED HEAD OFFICE, ALUVA ERNAKULAM , REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR - 683101

2 THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

8TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682036 BY ADVS.

LATHA ANAND K.R.PRAMOTH KUMAR(P-350)

S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)(K/986/2012)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).21526/2022, THE COURT ON 19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Since the parties are the same and common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For sake of convenience, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the exhibits and the status of the parties referred to in this judgment will be as obtaining in W.P.(C) No.21526 of 2022.

2. The petitioner is a scheduled bank governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Sri. Prakash Kumar Pillai (hereinafter referred to as 'workman') joined the service of the Bank as a Bankman on 10.06.1997 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Typist-cum- Clerk on 02.07.2013. While in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the workman under Clause 12(f) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002. He was charged with acts of minor misconduct, including committing nuisance on the bank premises, failing to show proper consideration, courtesy or attention towards officers, customers, and other employees of the Bank, and displaying unseemly and unsatisfactory behaviour while on duty. The Bank, by Ext. P1 order dated 05.12.2012, imposed a minor punishment of censure. However, the workman again involved in acts of misconduct while serving as Clerk at Dommasandra branch, Bangalore East.

Accordingly, Ext. P2 memo of charges was issued to the workman alleging that he committed lapses and omissions in giving proper customer service and misbehaved to superiors affecting the branch functions. In Ext. P2, it is alleged that while working at Dommasandra Branch, the workman displayed repeated instances of misconduct and negligence. On 22.09.2014, he failed to bring the cash keys causing a customer to wait over an hour for a gold loan, leading to a written complaint. Despite repeated warnings, his behavior did not improve. He often failed to provide proper customer service and refused to take up duties beyond cash-related work. On 05.11.2014, the workman played FM radio loudly during work hours, disrupting the office environment. When the Branch Head attempted to address the issue, the workman responded aggressively and made disrespectful remarks in front of customers and staff. One customer, who had intended to open a fixed deposit, withdrew due to the incident. Later that day, the workman con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top