D. P. Wadhwa, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. (Bank for short) is the appellant. The Bank is aggrieved by the judgment dated August 5, 1988 of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court passed in Writ Appeal whereby it set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge dated January 24, 1995 allowing the writ petition of the Bank and quashing the reference made by the Central Government under Section 101 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the 'Act'). The reference of the industrial dispute was as follows:- 1. 10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.- (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing,- (a) to (c) ********** (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c): Provided further. . . . . . Provided also. . . . . . . . ". "Whether the action of the management of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. in dismissing Shri K. P. Madhavankutty from service w.e.f. 11-8-1972 is justified If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to -
(3.) We may refer to circumstances which led the Central Government to make the reference. Respondent was working as a clerk with the Bank. He had put in ten years of service. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for having misapproriated a sum of Rs. 1,185/- and falsifying the books of the Bank. After conclusion of the inquiry he was served with a memo dated October 13, 1972 to show cause as to why punishment of dismissal from service be not awarded to him in the light of the grave misconduct proved against him. Respondent admitted his guilt and prayed for mercy. His plea was examined. However, considering the circumstances of the case he was dismissed from the service of the Bank with effect from August 11, 1972. Respondent filed appeal to the Board of Directors of the Bank. He admitted to have committed the misappropriation, expressed unconditional regret and prayed that highest penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed on him. His appeal was dismissed by order dated January 30, 1973. The appellate authority was of the view that on consideration of the entire circumstances it was felt that in the interest of the Bank it was not desirable to retain the respondent in the service of the Bank. The matter rested at that. Respondent got whatever benefits were due to him under the rules of the Bank.;