Gujarat High Court
The Tarapur Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd vs Hiteshbhai Haridas Shah on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3417/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3417 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
THE TARAPUR CO. OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD.
Versus
HITESHBHAI HARIDAS SHAH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.MANAN BHATT(6535) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 17/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the award passed
by the learned Labour Court, Anand in Termination
Application No.1 of 2010, whereby the petitioner-
employer has been directed to reinstate the
respondent without back wages. The aforesaid award
has been confirmed by the learned Industrial
Tribunal, Anand in Appeal No.9 of 2016, vide order
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3417/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
dated 26.11.2019.
2 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent
was employed with the petitioner-Bank as a Clerk
since 26.02.1992. On 01.08.2003, the respondent
tendered his resignation, accepted all legal dues, and
thereafter requested the Bank to appoint him on a
temporary basis. Considering his request, the
petitioner-Bank appointed him on a fixed-term basis
with effect from 01.09.2003. According to the
petitioner, the respondent was irregular in attending
duties, frequently misbehaved with customers, and
committed several mistakes while discharging his
duties as a Clerk-cum-Cashier. Consequently, a
warning memo was issued to him. However, as the
respondent did not improve his conduct, his services
came to be terminated on 22.12.2009, which was
challenged by him before the learned Labour Court
by filing Termination Application No.1 of 2010 under
the BIR Act.
2.1 Since a departmental inquiry had been initiated
prior to the termination order, the petitioner
examined witnesses, namely Hashmukhbhai
Jashubhai Patel, Laljibhai Fulabhai Patel,
Rakeshbhai Ramanbhai Solanki, and Khodabhai
Dahyabhai Parmar, who were customers of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3417/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
petitioner-Bank. The learned Labour Court, after
considering the evidence adduced by both sides,
allowed the Reference and directed reinstatement
of the respondent with continuity of service but
without back wages. The said award was carried in
appeal before the learned Industrial Tribunal by
filing Appeal No.9 of 2016, which also came to be
dismissed on the ground that the termination
order was passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice. Both these orders are the subject
matter of challenge in the present petition.
3 Heard the learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the
petitioner and the learned advocate Mr.Manan Bhatt
for the respondent.
4 Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submitted that the
respondent had tendered his resignation and
accepted all terminal dues, including gratuity, leave
encashment and provident fund. Thereafter, he was
re-employed by the petitioner-Bank on a temporary
basis, initially for a probation period of six months. It
is submitted that after such reappointment, the
respondent remained irregular in attending duties
and was found to be casually handling calculations of
customers' accounts. Several mistakes committed by
him were brought to the notice of the Manager, for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3417/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
which notices and warning memos were issued,
calling upon him to improve his conduct and
discharge duties diligently. It is submitted by the
learned advocate Mr. Mishra despite affording
sufficient opportunities, no improvement was
noticed, and accordingly, a show cause notice dated
22.12.2009 came to be issued. The reply submitted
by the respondent on 26.12.2009 was found
unsatisfactory, and consequently, the order of
termination came to be passed on 26.12.2009.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mishra further submitted
that the respondent was a temporary employee
and, as per the specific condition in the
appointment order, being on probation, his
services were liable to be terminated without
notice if found unsatisfactory. It is further
submitted that the contention of the respondent
regarding forcible resignation is baseless,
inasmuch as, after voluntarily tendering
resignation, he accepted all his dues and
subsequently applied for reappointment on a
temporary basis, which was duly considered by the
Bank, and he continued in service from 2003 to
2009. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submitted that
the learned Labour Court committed an error in
discarding the evidence adduced by the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3417/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
in support of the charges levelled against the
respondent. It is submitted that by the learned
advocate Mr. Mishra that the documentary
evidence showing that due to mistakes of the
respondent, customers were diverted to other
banks, was erroneously ignored by the learned
Labour Court while awarding reinstatement in
favour of the respondent, therefore, the impugned
award suffers from infirmities and deserves to be
set aside, and the petition is required to be
allowed.
5 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Manan Bhatt
appearing for the respondent has submitted that the
resignation tendered by the respondent was not
voluntary but was taken forcefully. Thereafter, on
31.08.2003, the respondent was appointed on
probation for an initial period of six months, and
subsequently, he was given a fixed-term
appointment. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has
submitted that as the respondent was an active
member of the Union, which had raised an industrial
dispute before the learned Labour Court against the
Gujarat Urban Cooperative Bank regarding reduction
of wages, he was asked by the petitioner-Bank to
sign an application undertaking that he would
continue to work on whatever salary was offered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3417/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
Since the respondent refused to sign such an
undertaking, he was victimized by the management
of the petitioner-Bank.
5.1 It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr.
Bhatt that admittedly, no written complaints were
ever received from any of the customers regarding
the alleged irregularities or misbehavior. The
witnesses examined in support of the alleged
misconduct also admitted that they had not lodged
any written complaints against the respondent.
Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has submitted that
even in relation to the mistakes alleged in
calculating customers' dues, the respondent could
not have been held solely responsible, since it was
the duty of the superior officer to verify the
vouchers prepared by the respondent. However,
under the guise of such allegations and with a view
to victimize him, the order of termination came to
be passed without conducting any departmental
inquiry and in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice.
5.2 It is further submitted by the leaned advocate
Mr. Bhatt that the reply to the show cause notice
given by the respondent was completely ignored
and, in fact, on the very same day, the order of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3417/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
termination was passed. Learned advocate Mr.
Bhatt submits that this clearly demonstrates that
the termination of the respondent was an act of
unfair labour practice adopted by the petitioner-
Bank. Therefore, no error has been committed by
the learned Labour Court in awarding
reinstatement in favour of the respondent, and the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
6 Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, it
emerges from the record that the respondent was
serving as a Clerk with the petitioner-Bank since
26.02.1992. As the financial condition of the Bank
was unsound, the respondent tendered his
resignation with effect from 31.08.2003 and received
all statutory dues. The contention of forceful
resignation was not accepted by the learned Labour
Court while passing the award in favour of the
respondent. Since the respondent has not challenged
that finding, this Court would not examine the said
aspect in the absence of any challenge.
6.1 The prime contention raised by the petitioner is
that after the resignation tendered by the
respondent, he applied for reappointment on a
temporary basis, which was considered by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3417/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
Bank, and accordingly, he was appointed on a
fixed-term basis at a salary of Rs.6,860/- with
effect from 01.09.2003. The appointment order
reflects that an initial probation period of six
months was prescribed. Thereafter, though no
further extension was ordered, the respondent was
continued in service. Hence, it can be concluded
that the probation period was successfully
completed and that the respondent was thereafter
appointed on a fixed-term basis.
6.2 It is an undisputed fact that the termination
order dated 26.12.2009 was passed without
initiation of any departmental proceedings. The
notice dated 22.12.2009 records three alleged
misconducts which are as follow:
(1) On 14.12.2009, the voucher prepared by the
respondent for a customer incorrectly reflected the
dues. The explanation offered was that while the
account number of Khodabhai was 16637, by
mistake the calculation was made in respect of
account number 16337 belonging to another
customer, namely Naineshkumar.
(2) A similar mistake occurred in the calculation for
the account of Rakeshkumar Solanki, whose
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3417/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
account number was 16305, whereas the
calculation was made for account number 16035.
(3) The respondent had allegedly not taken
sufficient interest to acquaint himself with the
operation of the computer.
6.3 However, this allegation was found to be false in
light of the certificate issued by the Branch
Manager, exhibited at Exhibit 21, certifying that
the respondent was honest, sincere, hardworking,
and conversant with computer operations. The
witnesses examined by the petitioner, who were
customers of the Bank, admitted in cross-
examination that they had never submitted any
written complaint against the respondent. It
further emerges from their evidence that none of
the customers had suffered any financial loss,
since the initial incorrect calculations made by the
respondent were subsequently rectified by the
Manager.
7 In the opinion of this Court, since the account
numbers were found to be identical, the error
committed by the respondent can reasonably be
regarded as a human mistake, which by no stretch
can be termed as a serious misconduct warranting
the extreme penalty of termination. From the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3417/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
evidence of the petitioner's witnesses, it further
emerges that prior to passing the order of
termination no chargesheet was issued, and that on
the very same day on which the respondent
submitted his reply to the notice, the termination
order came to be passed.
8 Considering the fact that the termination was
effected de-hors the procedure prescribed under the
I.D. Act, no error can be said to have been committed
by the learned Reference Court in awarding the
Reference in favour of the respondent.
9 Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt, appearing for the
respondent, has submitted that the respondent is
presently around 60 years of age. Considering the
said fact, this Court is of the view that awarding
appropriate compensation would meet the ends of
justice.
10 Resultantly, the petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the
learned Labour Court, Anand in Termination
Application No.1 of 2010 is modified to the extent
that, in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, the
respondent shall be entitled to a lump sum
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, which shall be
treated as full and final settlement of the award. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3417/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
petitioner is directed to pay the said amount within a
period of four months from today, failing which the
amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per
annum or the said amount shall be recovered from
the account of the erring officer. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
