Division Bench Confirms Reinstatement with Full Back Wages for Employee Accused of Unauthorized Possession of Bank Property
In a significant judgment, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has upheld the reinstatement of Sri Jyotirmoy Basu, a former employee of the Bank of Baroda, who was dismissed for alleged misconduct involving unauthorized possession of bank property. The bench, comprising Justices Lanusungkum Jamir and Rai Chattopadhyay, dismissed the bank's appeal against the order of a Single Judge that directed Basu's reinstatement with full back wages.
The case revolved around charges against Basu for possessing items such as rubber stamps, letterheads, and passbooks belonging to the bank's Bhawanipur branch, found at his residence during a raid in November 2000. The bank alleged that this constituted an act prejudicial to its interests under Clause 19.5(j) of the bipartite settlement. However, both the Tribunal and the Single Judge found no evidence of any prejudice caused to the bank's business or reputation due to this possession.
The Single Judge's decision to modify the Tribunal's award, which initially granted Basu a lump sum compensation, was challenged by the bank. The Division Bench, however, found no palpable illegality or miscarriage of justice in the Single Judge's order. The court emphasized that without proof of actual misuse of the bank's property or damage to its interests, the termination of Basu's service was unjustified.
The judgment highlights the importance of demonstrating actual prejudice to the employer's interests in misconduct cases involving unauthorized possession of property. The court reiterated that the appellate court should not interfere with a Single Judge's order unless it is marred by gross illegality or results in a miscarriage of justice.
Bottom Line:
Labour Law - Misconduct - Unauthorized possession of bank's property by an employee - Mere possession without proof of prejudice to the bank's business or reputation does not justify termination of service - Reinstatement with full back wages ordered by the Single Judge upheld in the absence of palpable illegality or miscarriage of justice.
Statutory provision(s): Clause 19.5(j) of the bipartite settlement, Labour Law provisions regarding misconduct and termination of service.
