HC Upholds Punishment After Fair Enquiry, Limits Back Wages

Case Details: General Manager (P) Corporation Bank (Now Union Bank of India) vs. Sri. L. Jayaram - [2026] 187 taxmann.com 635 (HC-Karnataka)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• D.K. Singh & T.M. Nadaf, JJ.
• Pradeep S. Sawkar & S.R. Kamalacharan, Advs. for the Petitioner. 
• Ms Sumana Naganand, Adv. & S.S. Naganand, Sr. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent was working as typist-cum-clerk in the petitioner bank. The Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent. After conducting a domestic enquiry, the enquiry officer held that the charges were proved, and the bank discharged the respondent from service with effect from 16.06.2004.
The Industrial dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court to adjudicate the legality and justification of discharge. The Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was fair, just and proper, and recorded that the charges stood proved on the evidence.
However, it interfered with the punishment and directed the bank to pay 80% of the back wages from 16.06.2004 until the respondent attained the age of superannuation.
It was noted that once a domestic enquiry was just, fair, and proper, and the charges were proved on the evidence on record, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the punishment.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the impugned award was unsustainable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. However, considering the fact that the respondent was aged about 70 years, and he had been out of employment from 2004, though the impugned award was set aside, the petitioner bank was directed to pay 25% of back wages from the date, i.e., 16.06.2004, till the respondent attained the age of superannuation without any interest.