Kerala High Court
Kabeer vs Industrial Tribunal on 31 May, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 28472 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.07.2001 IN ID NO.97 OF 1999 OF
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER:
KABEER,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. ASSANAR,
KUPPIYODE, ELAPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI. SANTHEEP ANKARATH
SRI. ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
PALAKKAD - 678002.
2 ELAPULLI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. F. 1193,
ELAPULLY, PALAKKAD - 678622,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
BY ADV.
SRI. RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28472 OF 2014
2
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 28472 of 2014
-------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed impugning Exhibit
P-2 Award whereby the punishment dismissal effected on the
petitioner vide Exhibit P-1 has been upheld by the 1 st
respondent Industrial Tribunal in Industrial Dispute No. 97 of
1999.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined his
submissions to the fact that two other employees in the Bank
who also faced same charges as the petitioner and the
punishment of dismissal was effected on them which was
upheld by the Industrial Tribunal in ID No. 97 of 1999 had
challenged the Order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and, this
Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2006 passed in
O.P. Nos. 4556 P and 6673 T of 2002 has modified the order of
dismissal to the punishment of discharge from service.
3. The learned Counsel for the Bank does not dispute the
aforesaid assertions made on behalf of the petitioner.
WP(C) NO. 28472 OF 2014
4. As two other employees who were also charge sheeted
along with the petitioner for identical charges had approached
this Court and this Court had modified the order of punishment
from dismissal to discharge, this Court finds it appropriate that
petitioner should also give the same treatment and, therefore,
it is provided that the punishment of dismissal is modified to
punishment of discharge from service. The consequence should
follow.
Sd/-
DINESH KUMAR SINGH
JUDGE
Svn
WP(C) NO. 28472 OF 2014
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28472/2014
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL DATED
01-09-1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BANK TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 11-07-2001 IN
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO 97/99 PASSED BY THE
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-06-2006
IN CC NO 247/2002 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE I, PALAKKAD 19-96
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08-12-2006
IN OP NO 6673/2002 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 30-12-
1995 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BANK
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 20-
08-1996 SUBMITTED BY THE ENQURIY OFFICER
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK
