Bombay High Court censures bank for apathy to employee who gave up promotion to look after disabled son

The Bombay High Court recently criticised the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) for apathetically refusing to roll back a decision to transfer an employee to Chennai on promotion, even though the employee was willing to give up the promotion to take care of her disabled child in Mumbai. .A Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashwin D Bhobe said that the bank's approach lacked human sensitivity, and eventually set aside the transfer. "What surprises us is the stand of the bank, that there is no prevailing policy and therefore, it cannot accept the request of the Petitioner (employee) permitting her to continue in Mumbai, despite the fact that she is ready to forego her promotional post ... For a situation like this, lack of a policy may not be an impediment but lack of sympathetic approach, on part of an employer, definitely is ...The entire approach lacked human sensitivity and in any case we are duty bound to come to the rescue of the Petitioner," the Court held on January 3..Earlier, on December 18, 2024, the Court had recorded the woman employee's (petitioner) undertaking that she would give up her promotion from a clerical post to that of Assistant Manager if it meant that she could stay back in Mumbai.She explained that her ten-year-old child suffered from visual impairment of 95 per cent and could not manage his daily life independently. She, therefore, wished to stay back in Mumbai and take care of him."The order clearly reflected the sacrifices made by a mother for the sake of her child," the Court observed..During the December hearing, the bank also said that it would consider the petitioner's request to remain in Mumbai by giving up her promotion, if such a request is emailed to the bank. However, the bank later rejected her request to stay back in Mumbai. During a January 3 hearing, the bank's counsel said that once a promotion has been accepted, it cannot be reversed. There was no policy allowing for such a move, the Court was told.Justices Dangre and Bhobde expressed disappointment with such an approach by the bank. "This Statement (that the bank has no policy to roll back the petitioner's transfer-promotion) coming from the newly appointed counsel on behalf of the Bank, annihilates the very spirit of it being an ideal employer and particularly, when what the employee is seeking only her retention at Mumbai, on account of the perilous situation, in which she find herself along with his son," the Court said. .The Court also took exception to the bank's statement that the employee's child can be looked after well in Chennai also. "We really find difficult to appreciate the stand of the bank, as we are of the firm opinion that it is the mother, who can take a better decision for her own child and definitely she will not be rely upon the decision of a stranger and specifically those in the helm of affairs of the bank, who feel that Chennai would be a better place for her son," the Court observed..The Court thus quashed the bank’s refusal to reverse the promotion and directed the petitioner’s reinstatement to her earlier position as a clerk in Mumbai, effective from January 1, 2025.It clarified that woman would not face any adverse career consequences for her decision and would retain the financial benefits she received during her brief tenure as Assistant Manager in Chennai. The Court also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the bank for its apathetic approach in this case, directing it to be paid to the National Association for the Blind..Advocates Hamza Lakdawala, Mohammed Najmi, Racheeta Chawla, Maria Najmi and Mohammed Najmi appeared for the petitioner.Advocate Priyanka K, Rishi Bekal and BK Ahsok appeared for the IOB..[Read Order]