JUDGMENT:

S.B. SINHA, J - Leave granted.

1. Whether jurisdiction of the Industrial Courts are ousted in regard to an order of dismissal passed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, a Corporation constituted and incorporated under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 3.2.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam.

2. Respondent herein was appointed as a Development Officer of the appellant. Departmental proceeding were initiated against him. Articles of Charges were framed; fifth of it being, forgery of a signature on a proposal. According to the Enquiry Officer, the respondent was negligent in the performance of his duties as he did not personally verify the details of the person concerned and relied wholly upon the representation of the agent. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the first four charges, but exonerated him on the fifth one. He was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority by an order dated 19.4.1989.

3. An industrial dispute was raised by him. The appropriate Government referred the following dispute for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the Management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Thiruvananthapuram in removing from service of Sh. R. Suresh, Development officer with effect from 19.04.1989 is justified? If not what relief is the workman entitled to."

4. By an Award dated 6.2.1993, while holding that the principles of natural justice have been followed in the matter of holding the domestic enquiry against the respondent, in respect of charges 1 to 4, but having regard to the nature of charges vis-`-vis the admission of the respondent, it was held:

"IV. Admittedly there was no monetary loss to the management and no monetary gain to the workman by the issuance of a policy in the name of a dead person. It is pertinent to note that senior branch manager of the Punalur Branch office of the management has deposed before Enquiry Officer "that the workman has not deliberately secured the proposal knowing that the party as dead. But he has been careless in not verifying the correct facts that is why it is said his work habit is unsatisfactory". The above statement makes it clear that the workman deliberately not secured the policy but everything happened due to his carelessness. As per Regulation Nos. 21 and 24 mentioned above every employee of the management corporation shall serve the corporation honestly and faithfully and shall maintain absolute, integrity and devotion to duty etc., and as per Regulation 39(1) the management is empowered to impose punishment for committing breach of the Regulations of the Corporation and the punishment included dismissal as well. But as deposed by the senior Branch Manager the workman was careless in securing the proposal which resulted in the issuance of the policy in the name of a dead person. It may be recalled that he had only two years service with the management and there was no other complaint against him during that period except the other complaint against him during that period except the present charge. But the misconduct happened due to his carelessness on as admitted by the senior Branch Manager. On an anxious consideration of all these aspects I am of the view that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh to be sustained. The management failed to consider these aspects and failed to award a lesser punishment. However, the workman cannot be let off without any punishment for the misconducts proved against him. The anguish and pain suffered by him due to the loss of his job and denial of backwages and all other monetary benefits would be adequate punishment according to me for the misconducts now proved against him. Subject to that he is ordered to be reinstated in service."

5. A Writ Petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court. A contention inter alia was raised therein that the