Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ajitkumar Motilal Kasliwal, joined the Central Bank of India as a peon on 3 October 1984, initially as a daily wager, and was made permanent on 1 January 1994. He was promoted to cash peon on 30 January 1995. In October 2008, he was diagnosed with Hepatitis-B. On 4 February 2014, he was served with a charge sheet for claiming reimbursement of domiciliary treatment for Hepatitis-B since December 2008, initially claiming Rs. 13,698 per month. The disciplinary authority forfeited his pending medical bills and imposed a penalty. The Labour Court, in Reference IDA No. 12 of 2016, passed Award-I on 29 October 2020 and Award-II on 6 October 2021, upholding the forfeiture but denying reinstatement with backwages. The petitioner challenged these awards before the Bombay High Court, seeking reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service, or alternatively, compensation. The High Court, considering the petitioner's age (63 years) and health condition, held that the forfeiture of all pending bills was disproportionate. It allowed the writ petition in part, setting aside the forfeiture and ordering reinstatement with continuity of service but without full backwages. Instead, the court awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 in lieu of backwages and directed the refund of forfeited amounts. The court emphasized that the punishment should be proportionate to the misconduct and that the petitioner's long service and health warranted a lenient view.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Forfeiture of Medical Reimbursement - The petitioner, a bank employee, was charged with claiming reimbursement for domiciliary treatment for Hepatitis-B without proper authorization. The Labour Court upheld the forfeiture of bills but denied reinstatement. The High Court held that the forfeiture was disproportionate and ordered reinstatement with compensation in lieu of backwages, considering the petitioner's age and health. (Paras 2-10) B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11A - Proportionality of Punishment - The High Court, exercising power under Article 226, modified the Labour Court's award to grant reinstatement with continuity of service but without full backwages, awarding compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 instead. The court found that the forfeiture of all pending bills was excessive and that the petitioner's long service and health condition warranted a lesser punishment. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court erred in upholding the forfeiture of medical reimbursement bills and denying reinstatement with backwages to the petitioner, and whether the punishment of forfeiture was proportionate.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition in part. It set aside the forfeiture of pending bills and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but without full backwages. Instead, the court awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 in lieu of backwages and directed the refund of forfeited amounts.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Forfeiture of medical reimbursement
- Reinstatement with compensation
- Proportionality of punishment
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
