Advocates:
['M/S SUDARSHAN NANDA', 'SANJIT MOHANTY', '', 'S NANDA', 'D MOHANTY', 'N C SAHOO', 'S P PANDA', 'M/S A K PARIJA', 'S P SARANGI', 'B C MOHANTY', 'P P MOHANTY']

Page 1 of 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.5186 of 2002

Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.

….

Petitioner

Mr. S. Nanda, Advocate

-versus-

Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar and another

….

Opp. Parties

Mr. S.P. Sarangi, Advocate

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

Order No.

ORDER

16.09.2021

04.

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ.

1. The Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. has filed this petition

against an Award dated 1^st August, 2002 passed by the Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.62 of 1992 holding that

the dismissal of Opposite Party No.2 Workman by the

Petitioner-Management with effect from 16^th October, 1989

was illegal and ordered his reinstatement with certain other

incidental directions.

2. While directing notice to issue in the present petition on 9^th

December, 2002 this Court stayed the impugned Award. That

stay order has continued since. Today, the Court was informed

that Opposite Party No.2 Workman has expired during

pendency of the present petition. He will have to be substituted

Page 2 of 23

by his legal representatives (LRs). However, in view of the

decision of the Court today, it is directed that the substitution

of the Workman by his LRs can take place in the

consequential proceedings hereafter in the Labour Court.

3. The background facts are that the Workman joined the

Management Bank as Junior Assistant on 18^th July, 1987. He

was a Cashier in the Main Branch of the Bank. The Bank’s

case is that on 9^th July 1988, while the Workman was in-

charge of the payment counter of the cash section, he made

payment against a cheque which turned out to be a fake one

and bore a false Savings Bank account number; the cheque

was signed by a person who had no such account with the

Bank. It was alleged by the Management that the Workman

had misappropriated the amount by manipulating the records

and thus defrauded the Bank. The Management further

contended that the Workman admitted his guilt and paid a sum

of Rs. 12,000/-. On the above allegations, the Workman was

first placed under suspension on 24^th July, 1988 and on 25^th

October, 1998 a charge sheet was issued to him.

4. On 31^st October, 1988 the Workman filed an application

seeking supply of documents. The Bank did not accede to the

request but on 12^th November, 1988 informed him to come to

the Bank for inspection of the documents. According to the

Bank, the Workman did not file reply to the charge sheet.

Page 3 of 23

5. The Bank held a domestic enquiry by appointing an Enquiry

Officer (EO) on 5^th January, 1989. At the sitting of the EO on

24^th January, 1989 the Workman did not appear and the

proceeding was adjourned to 8^th February, 1989. According to

the Management, the Workman appeared on 8^th February,

1989 submitted a reply but left the proceeding without

participating. On the next date, i.e. 8^th August, 1989 the

Workman appeared but according to the Management did not

respond to the question posed to him and left the proceedings.

6. The EO submitted a report holding the charges against the

Workman proved. A second show cause was issued to the

Workman on 31^st August, 1989 and a personal hearing was

offered. It is stated that the Workman appeared on 16^th

October, 1989 but did not answer the questions put to him and

left the proceedings which were then closed. On 1^st November,

1989 the Secretary of the Bank issued an order dismissing the

Workman from service with effect from 16^th October, 1989.

7. The appeal against the above order was dismissed on 24^th

March, 1990.

8. The Workman raised an industrial dispute. On the failure of

the conciliation proceedings, a reference was made by the

Page 4 of 23

appropriate Government on 24^th April, 1992 to the Labour