Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.NARAYANAN, NOCHIPALLY versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.NARAYANAN, NOCHIPALLY v. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - OP No. 4556 of 2002(P) [2006] RD-KL 2927 (8 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 4556 of 2002(P)

1. K.NARAYANAN, NOCHIPALLY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
... Respondent

2. ELAPULLI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE

For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :08/12/2006

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````` O.P. Nos. 4556 P and 6673 T OF 2002 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dated this the 8th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

Two workers of the 2nd respondent Co-operative Bank, who were dismissed from service on allegations of misconduct, have approached this court with these original petitions challenging Ext.P4 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad in I.D.No.97/99, wherein the issue as to whether the dismissal of these petitioners and others were justifiable or not was adjudicated. The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners before me is regarding the proportionality of punishment imposed on the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that the facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the petitioners themselves owned up their mistakes and sought clemency would go to show that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged against them.

2. I have considered the contentions of both sides. The counsel for the management would submit that the charges are grave enough to warrant punishment of dismissal and, therefore, there is no scope for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. OP.4556 & 6673/02 2

3. I have gone through the allegations found to have been proved against the petitioners in these two original petitions. From a reading of the award itself, it is clear that the petitioners were in fact acting under the instructions from the manager of the bank at the relevant time. Further, I find that the petitioners were not given a second show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment. Taking into account all these factors, I feel that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioners is too harsh and a punishment of discharge from service would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly I modify Ext.P4 award converting the punishment imposed on the petitioners as discharge from service instead of dismissal. The petitioners would, therefore, be entitled to benefits arising from discharge from service as on the date of dismissal, including pension from the Co-operative Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, if they are otherwise eligible for the same. Original petitions are disposed of as above.

(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)

aks

S. SIRI JAGAN , J.

OP No.4556 & 6673/02

J U D G M E N T

8th December, 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.