WP/14094/2005 of UNION BANK OF INDIA, NODAL REGIONAL OFFICE, NAMPALLY, HYD. Vs CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDING OFFICER,TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR CRT AND 1 HYD on 9 February 2026

:ORDER:

Petitioner-Bank has questioned the Award dated 27 J22004 passed in l.D.No.42 of 2003 by respondent No'1, insofar as directing it to pay eight (8) months last drawn salary to respondent No.2.

2. Heard Mr. G.V.S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner' Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia appearing for respondent No.'t and Mr. P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 (learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.9043 of 2006). Perused the record.

3' Respondent No.2 was appointed as a sub_staff in the petitioner-Bank on 01.,t0.197S and thereafter he was promoted as a Clerk/Cashier in the year 19g3. On the ground of unauthorized absence, a charge sheet dated 06.05.1991 was issued to him calling upon to submit his explanation. Thereafter, an ex parte inquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service on 25.10.1991 . Respondent No.2 approached the Labour Court by filing l.D.No.42 of 2OO3 and the Labour Court confirmed his dismissal from service. However, it directed the petitioner-Bank to pay compensation equivalent to half a month,s wages for every completrtd year of service, which was calculated at 7 % months and rounded off to g months last drawn salary, within (30) days from the date of publication of the Award, failing which, respondent No.2 shall be entifled to interest @ 60/o per annum on the said amount, after exp,iry of the said (30) days. Aggrieved, the petitioner_Bank filed this writ petition.

4. case of the petitioner-Bank is that respondent No.2 remained absent frr:m duty without prior intimation or sanctioned leave on the following occasions: from 29.01.1991 to 04.OZ.1gg1 , from 18.02.19$1 to 23.03.1991, on 07.05.1991, from 13.0S.1991 to 17.05.19€l't, from 21.05.1991 to 22.05.1991, from 28.05..t991 to 30.05.1991, on 1g.06.1991 and on 22.06.1991, in contravention of ,;7, J I I the Leave Rules of the Bank. He was also charged with issuing cheques in the year 1989 without maintaining sufficient funds in his account for which he was censured and under a separate charge memo dated 25.07.1990, two annual increments were withheld on account of his unauthorized absence. Despite receipt of notice, respondent No.2 failed to appear before the lnquiry Officer, as such, the inquiry was conducted ex parte. A copy of the inquiry report along with the findings and the proposed punishment was duly served on respondent No.2, however, he failed to respond for the same

5. Further case of the petitioner-Bank is that the disciplinary authority, having left with no other option, confirmed the proposed punishment and dismissed respondent No.2 from services of the petitioner-Bank. As respondent No.2 did not prefer any Appeal against the order of dismissal, the said order attained finality. However, after an inordinate delay of more than ('l'l) years, respondent No.2 approached the Labour Court. Without assigning any proper or cogent reasons and on humanitarian grounds, the Labour Court passed the impugned Award, which is contrary to law' Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6' r-earned counser for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition, respondent No.2 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. tn support of his contenrion, he reried on the judgment of the Hon,bre supreme court in Life tnsurance Corporation of tndia v. R.Dhandapanit and drawn attention of this court to paragraph Nos.g and g, which is as follows: B. tt ,b n.ot^_necesgary to go into in detail regarding the power exercisabte ,niq iiii"i,t i_Z rr the Act. The power under said Sic;ion tt_ e has to be exercised judiciousty and the riifiiriar rribunar or the Labour court, 1i1e.+; ;;;;", is expected to inteffere with the.. decision oiZ i,"nrgement under Section tl-A of the.eA orti iner"it i" satisfied that punishment imoo2ld_fv tp hriisiment is whotty and 1!39*inOtv disproportionate to ini"a-igr* of guitt of the workman concern,ed. ro ,;pi;;-is conctusion the tndustriat Tribuna!3r n" LiEZirr'iourt, as fhe case may be, has to oi i;;;;;;;'hl'l:;:Z:r:J:,::;iii:::,:{,: j""l:;X:i, use of the words ,aispropoiiiiate, or ,grossly d i s p ro po rt i o n ate, by itse r iii iZt' i J' i, ni "i" n t.

9. ln recent times, there /s 71yi!en.c9 9q iiis, . perhaps iir,_^""ii ui,Xf,",ii!,f, unsustainable, tendency Awardi a"ienuaafion of the tgq.itiyacr ot iudigiat^'*;;;;;""i0 pro"r"r. rhe reliefs granted by the couir-iiitol'"""n to be togicat and tenabte within tne rrameiii';f t;" bw and shoutd not incur and justify tne critiiiii liiiin" jurisdiction of the Courts tends .. to a"grn";ili " into misptaced sympathy, generosity and irivati -benevotence. tt is essenfra/ to maintain t1t9. iitegiity ii t"gri i"ii".iiii 1y^:!: tgoitlmgcy -of the ""o,n-itu-"ionr. rhey must ,.!,?lr.t" logically from the tegal-finaings and the ludiciat resu/fs must -be """r-7o' bi' principted and supportable on those lindinOs exiaiiive judiciat mood of mistaken and misptar",dA;;:;;;iii "t the expense ?! t!" legitimacy of th.e pro""r{ii'Zventuatty tead to mutua'v irreconcirabte' situaiini Jia denude the ' atR zooo sL pREME couRT 6t5

t iudiciat process of its digntty, authority, Prldbtability 'and respectabitity. ISee.: Kerala So/u=ent ExtrA^c!9{ts Ltii. i.'a. urriiritinrn aio nnr' [1ee4 (1) SCALE 631)1. Hence, he prayed to set aside and quash the impugned Award' T.Mr.P.SridharRao,learnedcounselforrespondentNo'2 (learned counsel for the petitioner in w.P.No.9043 of 2006) submits that the absence of respondent No.2 herein was on account of the death of his wife due to cancer and the demise of his father with a heart stroke. lt is further contended that respondent No.2 herein has put in 16 years of service. The Labour court, after considering all the aspects, has rightly granted compensation and the same need not be interfered with. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. S.TheLabourCourt,uponappreciationofthematerialon record, upheld the validity of the inquiry conducted and confirmed the finding of misconduct as well as the punishment of dismissal' However, considering the length of service rendered by respondent No.2 and the mitigating circumstances pleaded by him, it exercised its discretion to award limited monetary compensation in lieu of any further relief. The contention of the petitioner-Bank that once the Labour court confirmed the dismissal, it ought not to have granted any compensation, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as the Labour court, in exercise of its powers under section 11-A of the tndustriar Disputr-'s Act, 1947, is vested with wide discretion not only to interfere with the quantum of punishment but arso to mourd the rerief in an :rppropriate and equitable manner. ln the present case, the Labour court has not interfered with the order of dismissat, but has only granted a modest compensation of eight months last drawn salary as an equitable measure. Further, during the pendency of the presenl writ petition, respondent No.2 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. ln such circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the Award passed by the Labour court warranting interference by this Court.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. P'=nding miscellaneous applications, if any, shail stand closed Sd/-C.DEEPIKA //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFTCER To,

1.

2.

3.

4. PMK One CC to SRI One CC to SRI lndi:r [OPUC] One CC to SRI Two CD Copies BN G.V.S. GANESH, Advocate IOPUCI N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicifor Generalof P. SRIDHAR RAO, Advocate tOpUCI W

HIGH COURT |0910212026 WP.No.14094 of 2005 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS E b ( * THE S o (J

7. n?t il ll E * t