The court directed the reconsideration of a back-wages claim where the employer's initial rejection was based on the 'benefit of doubt' in acquittal, while the bank later raised a substantive statutory bar under the Banking Regulation Act regarding employablity during conviction.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

This Appeal has been preferred by the Punjab National Bank, in which the respondent was working as a Head Cashier – who subsequently retired, on attaining the age of superannuation.

2. While the respondent was in service, he was charge-

sheeted by the Police for offences including culpable homicide amounting to murder; consequent to which, he appears to have been suspended from service with effect from 20.09.2008.

3. The criminal proceedings against the respondent continued and he stood trial, to be convicted on 22.09.2008. The appellant, thereupon, dismissed him from service with effect from

22.09.2008, as per Ext.P2.

4. The respondent was, thereafter, acquitted by this Court through Ext.P3 judgment dated 29.09.2016; and he thereupon moved a request before the appellant on 06.12.2016, seeking that he be reinstated in service.

5. The appellant, acting upon the afore request, issued Ext.P5 order dated 29.04.2014, reinstating the respondent in service, without back wages, with effect from 07.12.2016. The respondent was, however, not satisfied with Ext.P5 since he wanted his back wages and hence, approached this Court, to obtain Ext.P7 judgment, whereby, directions were issued to the appellant to reconsider his case.

6. It is admitted that, in obedience to Ext.P7 judgment, Ext.P9 order has been issued, in which again, the appellant took the stand that the respondent is not entitled to back wages; which constrained him to file the Writ Petition, which has now been allowed by the learned Single Judge, ordering 50% back wages in his favour. The appellant-Bank is before us assailing this portion of the judgment on various grounds.

7. Sri.D.Prem Kamath – learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, argued vehemently that, apart from the reasons stated in Exts.P5 and P9, there is a far more compelling reason why the respondent cannot be granted back wages because, as per Section 10B(1) of the Banking Regulation Act (‘BR Act’ for short), a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, could not have been employed; and hence, could not have been entitled to any wages, much less back wages. He relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Ors vs. Mohammed Abdul Rahim [(2013) 11 SCC 67], to show us that, in the said case, noticing almost identical facts, the Honourable Court declared that there was a prohibition in law, to employ a person who is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, under the ‘BR Act’ and hence, would not be entitled to any wages because he stood unemployable during the period until he was acquitted. He argued that, therefore, even if this Court is not to find in favour of Ext.P5 or P9 for any reason, the prohibition of employment of the respondent during the period in question would render it impossible for him to receive wages, much less back wages.

8. Smt.Thulasi K. Raj – learned counsel for the respondent, however, countered the afore submissions, relying upon various judgments, including that of the Honourable Court of Punjab and Haryana in K.C.Sareen & Another v. Punjab National Bank & Others and that of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kuldip Singh Thukral v. Punjab National Bank & Others [2015 SCC Online P&H 20177]. She argued that Section 10(1)B of the ‘BR Act’ would apply only in the case of a person who is yet to enter the services of a Bank and not thereafter because, once he/she does so, he/she would be governed by the Service Regulations, or the Bipartite Settlement - as