IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 13.08.2025 Pronounced on:11.11.2025 Ramal Thapar ….Petitioner Versus Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shreya Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate, and Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate, for the respondent-Bank.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)

1) The petitioner-workman, by filing instant writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to quash the award dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure P-20), passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal- respondent No.1, vide which, reference was answered against him, and the order of dismissal passed by the respondent-Bank was upheld, on the ground that the same was passed, after following the principles of natural justice.

2) The factual matrix, in the backdrop of which the present petition has been instituted, are that the petitioner-workman had been employed with the respondent-Bharat Overseas Bank, at Ludhiana Branch, as Clerk-cum-Cashier, on 21.02.1979. However, a dispute between the Employees Union and the respondent-Management led to a strike, which remained in operation from 07.08.1993 up till 11.08.1993. On the immediate next day, the Branch Manager had conveyed to the petitioner that he not only remained absent from duty during the period of strike, but also defied oral instructions to hand over the cash and safe keys to the designated employee, which, severely impacted smooth functioning of the institution, vide a communication dated 12.08.1993 (Annexure P-2). To which, the petitioner submitted his response on the same day, stating that no such direction was issued to him. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank served another letter upon the petitioner, thereby issuing a warning to hand over cash and safe keys to the Bank, vide letter dated 13.08.1993, (Annexure P-4).

3) Eventually, the respondent-Bank put him under suspension, vide letter dated 16.08.1993 (Annexure P-5). Further, the Management had even lodged a complaint on 19.08.1993 (Annexure P-7), with the Police, requesting action against the petitioner, under Section 406 IPC. Ultimately, on 19.08.1993, the keys were handed over to the Branch Manager, who also got the cash checked in the presence of Union Members, which was found to be correct by the Accountant. Thereafter, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 30.08.1993 (Annexure P-10), to which, he responded to, vide a reply dated 27.09.1993 (Annexure P-11). Before proceeding further with the matter, it is expedient to refer to the relevant contents of the charge-sheet:-

“Charge No.1: Your action of not handing over the possession of cash keys before absenting yourself from duty amounts to violation of instructions laid down in the Bank’s Book of Instructions, which is a minor misconduct as per para No.19.7 (d) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966.

Charge No.2: Your failure and refusal to handover the possession of cash keys and the charge of cash before striking work and despite repeated instructions by Accountant/Branch Manager and also by Head Office amounts to willful insubordination/disobedience, which is a major misconduct as per para No.19.5(e) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966. Charge No.3: Your action of deliberately disrupting the branch functioning for more than 12 days by not handing over the cash keys as a result of which customers and Bank have been put to undue hardship, difficulty and loss is an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank which is a major misconduct as per para

19.5 (e) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966.

Charge No.4: Your action of entering the Ludhiana Branch premises during the period of suspension without permission is violation of specific instructions contained in order dated 16.8.93, is an act of willful insubordination/dis