Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice K.R. Mohapatra directed the payment of ₹5 lakh as lump sum compensation along with 50% of back wages to a dismissed bank employee in lieu of reinstatement. The Court found that the workman had attained the age of superannuation and therefore reinstatement was not feasible. The writ petition filed by the employer bank challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal was disposed of with a direction to pay the said amount within two months. No order as to costs was passed.

The petitioner, the Management of State Bank of India, challenged the award dated 14 February 2017 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Case No. 30 of 2004. The award directed reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages. The workman, a Messenger at the Umerkote Branch of SBI, had been dismissed following departmental proceedings in relation to the withdrawal of ₹20,000 from the dormant account of a deceased pensioner, Smt. Radha Gouduni.

Also Read: Unregistered Sale Deeds Based On Revoked Power Of Attorney Cannot Confer Title | Supreme Court Restores Suit Over Disputed Land Transfer

The facts leading to the industrial dispute originated from an incident on 3 October 2000, when a withdrawal was made from the said account using a slip bearing a left thumb impression. It was later discovered that the account holder had died long before. The bank initiated departmental proceedings against four employees, including the workman, alleging that he had facilitated the transaction by submitting the withdrawal slip and misrepresenting the depositor's absence.

The workman was accused of approaching the account-handling clerk and falsely representing that the depositor was unable to attend due to a heavy rush at the bank, thereby securing issuance of a withdrawal token and allowing the transaction to proceed. After the matter came to light, the workman recovered the withdrawn amount from the grandson of the deceased and redeposited it.

He was removed from service under the bipartite settlement dated 10 April 2002, following an enquiry that found him guilty of gross misconduct. The workman’s appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority.

In his claim before the Tribunal, the workman contended that his duties did not involve handling cash or dealing with account transactions. He asserted that the bank officials responsible for issuing the token and disbursing the funds failed in their duties. He alleged procedural lapses in the enquiry, including non-supply of essential documents, denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and lack of a fair hearing.

The bank contended that the departmental enquiry had followed due process and complied with principles of natural justice. It submitted that the workman had misled bank officials and abetted the unauthorized withdrawal. It was argued that disciplinary action had also been taken against the other erring employees and that the punishment imposed on the workman was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

The Tribunal, after assessing oral and documentary evidence, held the dismissal invalid and directed reinstatement with partial back wages. The bank challenged this award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court stated, “It appears from record that the Workman had specifically taken a plea that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in a fair and transparent manner in conformity with the principles of natural justice.”

The Bench noted the absence of detailed pleadings or evidence from the Management on the fairness of the departmental proceedings: “Although evasive denial was made by the Management, but no specific pleading with regard to the fairness of the departmental enquiry was available in the written statement... No evidence was also adduced in that regard.”

On procedural irregularities, the Court recorded: “It appears that the Management had heavily relied on the report of the preliminary enquiry, the copy of which was not supplied to the Workman.” Further, the Court found that “the Workman had taken a specific plea that he being a Messenger, had no role in withdrawal of cash of a third party as per the duty chart of Messenger.”

The Court found disparity in disciplinary actions, stating: “Surprisingly, it appears... that the Officers involved in allowing withdrawal... were inflicted with minor penalties. But... the Workman was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal... It raises doubt about the fairness of the enquiry held against Workman.”

Regarding opportunity to respond to proposed punishment, the Court held: “There is no material on record to show as to whether the Workman was given any opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment... when he was inflicted with major penalty of dismissal from service.”

The Bench concluded that “the materials on record were not sufficient to hold the Workman guilty of any misconduct.” It upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted fairly.

However, considering the workman had already reached superannuation and received payments under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court declined to uphold the reinstatement order.

The Court held that the direction for reinstatement of the workman could not be given effect to due to his superannuation in 2022. It took judicial notice of the fact that the workman had already been paid under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act up to the date of superannuation. The employer submitted a statement showing disbursement of payments even beyond the date of superannuation, which was not seriously disputed by the workman.

Also Read: They May Be Divorced as Husband and Wife, But They Can Never Be Divorced as Parents: Kerala HC Closes Contempt Petition, Affirms Equal Parental Role in Special Child’s Education and Therapy

In view of the circumstances, the Court held: “Direction of learned Tribunal for reinstatement of the Workman does not arise at this stage.” Instead, it deemed it appropriate to award compensation: “This Court is of the considered opinion that an amount of ₹5.00 lakh towards lump sum compensation in lieu of his reinstatement and 50% of the back wages, as directed by learned Tribunal, will meet the ends of justice.”

“Accordingly, it is directed that the Management shall pay a sum of ₹5.00 lakh (rupees five lakh only) to the Workman/Opposite Party No.1 as lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service along with 50% of back wages within a period of two months hence.”

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate, being assisted by Mr. K.T. Mudali, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Durga Prasanna Das, Advocate (for Opposite Party No.1)

Case Title: State Bank of India v. Rama Krishna Behera & Anr.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 22135 of 2017

Bench: Justice K.R. Mohapatra, Chief Justice Harish Tandon

[Read/Download order]