Summary
The Court replaced the High Court’s reinstatement and consequential-benefits order with Rs.15 lakh lump-sum compensation. The bank had no acceptable evidence proving the employee’s suspected involvement in burning its records. However, reinstatement with full back wages was not automatic: his short service, absence from employment since 1991 and intervening superannuation justified monetary relief. Payment was due within eight weeks, with six per cent annual interest in the event of default. The bank’s appeal was partly allowed.
Issues
- Whether reinstatement with full consequential benefits should be retained despite long absence from service and intervening retirement.
- What monetary relief was appropriate where suspicion did not establish the alleged misconduct.
Held
- Strong suspicion of involvement in burning bank records did not supply acceptable evidence establishing misconduct. The Tribunal’s finding against proof of the charge had not been challenged by the bank; the Court did not restore the misconduct finding. (¶¶ 4, 6, 8)
- Reinstatement with full back wages does not follow automatically in every case of unlawful dismissal. The employee had approximately six years of service including suspension, remained out of service since 1991 and had reached superannuation during the proceedings. Those circumstances justified substituting lump-sum compensation. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The High Court’s relief was modified to Rs.15 lakh compensation payable within eight weeks. Failure to pay within that time attracted six per cent annual interest until payment. The appeal was partly allowed. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; reinstatement and consequential relief replaced by Rs.15 lakh compensation within eight weeks, with six per cent annual interest on default until payment.