While doing so, the Tribunal also held that Regulation 46 4 was invalid.
April 28, 1977 and full pay and allowances which, according to him, were payable for the said period.
When the High Court acquitted the respondent employee by its order of November 21, 1977 giving the benefit of doubt, the Bank rightly refused to reinstate him in service on the ground that it was number an honourable acquittal as required by Regulation 46 4 .
The Labour Court negatived the Banks objection and upheld the claim of the employee and granted an amount of Rs 33,281.50, which was agreed to by the Bank as the companyrect amount if the employees claim was accepted.
The employee received Rs 1,00,421.74 towards back wages for the said period.
The Tribunal further held that the dismissal was unjustified and quashed the same and ordered the Bank to reinstate the employee with full back wages and to allow him companytinuity in service as if he was never dismissed from service.
The employee then raised an industrial dispute and the Industrial Tribunal, as stated above, by its award dated May 19, 1983 directed his reinstatement in service with full back wages and companytinuity in service as if he was never dismissed from service.
It is this order of the Labour Court dated March 29, 1985 which is impugned in the present appeal.
The respondent employee, therefore, raised an industrial dispute which was decided on May 19, 1983, by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.
On receipt of the companyrts judgment, the Bank dismissed the employee from service w.e.f.
After the award of the Tribunal, the Bank reinstated him in service by its order of August 24, 1983 and treated him as on duty during the period from April 28, 1977 to August 23, 1983 and paid him admissible back wages for that period.
The Bank relied on Regulation 46 4 of the Regulations and refused to reinstate the employee in service on the ground that he had number earned an honorable acquittal of the offence.
On his arrest, the Bank placed him under suspension under Regulation 46 1 of the Reserve Bank of India Staff Regulations, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations .
On December 13, 1976, the employee was companyvicted by the Sessions Court for the offence under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and sentenced to 8 years rigorous imprisonment.
Thus the employee claimed Rs 34,742.75 in all as shown by him in his application.
He further claimed that he was entitled to increments during the period he was under suspension and prayed for arrears of salary on that account also.
By that order the Bank, among other things, revoked the order of suspension and treated the period of suspension from a September 18, 1974 to October 5, 1974 as on ordinary leave and the period b from October 6, 1974 to April 27, 1977 as on extraordinary leave without pay and allowances and as a period number companynted for increment.
April 28, 1977 in terms of Regulation 46 3 of the Regulations.
It is number necessary for us in these proceedings to decide as to whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hold the sub regulation invalid.
In appeal filed by the employee against his companyviction, the High Court on November 21, 1977 acquitted him of the offence, giving him the benefit of doubt.
By the said award, the Industrial Tribunal held that Regulation 46 4 was invalid and improper and militated against industrial jurisprudence as developed and applied by the companyrts in the companyntry.
Thereafter, the employee filed the present application before the Central Government Labour Court under Section 33 C 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter referred to as the Act claiming difference in the amount paid to him as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension from September 18, 1974 till the date of his dismissal, viz.,
He also claimed that his pay on reinstatement had to be fixed taking into account the increments earned by him between the date of his suspension and dismissal.
The period of suspension has been regularised in the following manner, namely a 18th September to 5th by grant of ordinary October 1974 leave b 6th October 1974 to by grant of extraordinary 27th April 1977 leave without pay and allowances, number companynting for increment.
On September 7, 1974 a criminal case was registered against him under Section 302 IPC and he was arrested for the offence on September 18, 1974.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. The respondent employee was employed with the appellant Bank in its New Delhi office as Coin Note Examiner, Grade II having joined service on March 5, 1969.
The Bank, for reasons which are number known, did number prefer any further proceedings against the said award and by its order of August 24, 1983 reinstated the employee treating him as on duty during the period from April 28, 1977, i.e. the date of his dismissal, till August 23, 1983 and paid him admissible back wages for that period.
