- (1.)(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the first respondent pertaining to the award dated 04.12.1996 of the first respondent in I.D. No. 485 of 1994 published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 16.4.1997 Part II - Section 2 (Supplement), quash the same and substitute the same by directing the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, full backwages and all other attendant benefits.) This writ petition is filed against the Award dated 04.12.1996 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 485 of 1994 as it had declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.
(2.)THE petitioner was employed as a Peon in the second respondent Bank. By a charge-memo dated 02.02.1987, six charges were framed against him and the charges relate to availing of jewel loan in the name of his family members and friends and obtaining loan in the name of his wife exceeding the maximum limit fixed for an individual, removing the jewels from the Bank even before clearing of the loan, despite admission of the guilt not making good the amount, making false entries in the register and the jewel loan cards in his own hand writing as though it was written by the Section Clerk and also he tore of several sheets in the jewel loan ledger to screen the evidence. He submitted an explanation dated 09.02.1987. THEreafter, a domestic enquiry was held by one Advocate.
The grievance of the petitioner was that the lawyer, who was engaged, was a junior Advocate of the counsel for the then President and therefore, the enquiry was biased. After conducting enquiry and examination of five witnesses in the enquiry by the Management and marking 62 documents, the petitioner examined himself and four other witnesses. The Enquiry Officer found that the first charge, viz., pledging loan in the name of his family members and friends and receiving particulars was proved and the other charges were not proved. The second show cause notice dated 15.9.1989 was given to the petitioner after examining the explanation submitted by the petitioner. He was dismissed by an order dated 12.6.1989. As against the said dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Board of Directors and the Board dismissed his appeal vide order dated 22.7.1991. It was thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer which finally reached the Labour Court at Chennai and was taken on file as I.D. No. 349 of 1992. Subsequent to the consideration of the Labour Court at Vellore, the matter was transferred and re-numbered as I.D. No. 485 of 1994.

Before the Labour Court, 17 documents were filed by the second respondent Management and they were marked as Exs. M.1 to M.17. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquriy was conducted in a fair and proper manner and the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the first charge was proved is borne out by records. On the question of quantum of punishment, the Labour Court held that though the petitioner was a last grade servant in the Bank, but he has misused his access to the Bank and committed a serious misconduct thereby rendering himself unworthy of confidence. Therefore, it refused to grant any relief to the petitioner by its Award dated 04.12.1996. It is against this Award, the present writ petition has been filed after a period of 1- years.

(3.)HEARD the arguments of Mr. Balan Haridoss, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. John, learned counsel appearing for M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co., for the second respondent and perused the records.
Mr. Balan Haridoss, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was also proceeded with the criminal action in Crime No. 8 of 1989 and was tried as the third accused before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Vellore. The learned Judge, after protracted trial in C.C. No. 4 of 1998, acquitted the petitioner by judgment dated 31.8.2005. The learned counsel wanted to take advantage of the subsequent Criminal Court judgment which was not available before the domestic enquiry.