Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.

Heard Ms. Surya Nilambari, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Das, learned advocate for respondent no. 3 and Mr. Ravi Ranjan, learned advocate for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside award dated 30.11.2015 passed in Industrial Dispute Case No. 04 (C) of 2011 by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna (for short 'Tribunal') whereby and whereunder the Tribunal constituted by the State Government for deciding industrial disputes falling in domain of the State Government in terms of Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') has entertained and decided the industrial dispute relating to dismissal of respondent no. 3 and the order of punishment of dismissal of the respondent no.3 from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have been set aside and the Management has been directed that the respondent no. 3 should be reinstated in the bank service.

3. Ms. Surya Nilambari, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the workman has been conferred the right to approach the Labour Court or Tribunal directly for adjudication of dispute after the expiry of 45 days from the date he made an application to the Conciliation Officer of the appropriate government under Section 2(a) (ii) of the Act in case of a workman for whom the appropriate government is the Central Government. The workman cannot directly approach the Tribunal or Court constituted by the State Government by virtue of the third proviso to Section 10 (1) (d) and 2-A (2) of the Act in respect of industrial dispute in relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate authority. Under the said provisions, it is the appropriate government alone who is vested with the discretion to choose any one by the authorities as specified for settlement of disputes. In this regard, she has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Reliance Communication Ltd. vs. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Labour and Employment and Ors. [2017 (3) PLJR 666]. She has also placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court rendered on 22.11.2017 in CWJC No. 2053 of 2016, which has been upheld by the Division Bench, vide order dated 17.05.2018 in LPA No. 1822 of 2017. She contended that in the case, at hand, respondent no. 3, in whose case, the appropriate government is the Central Government directly approached the State Industrial Tribunal, Patna, which lacks the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint merely on the application of the workman in absence of any reference of the dispute to it by the Central Government.

4. She further contended that the Tribunal interfered with the quantum of the penalty imposed by the State Bank of India (for short 'the Bank') even after concluding that the charges of defrauding the Bank amounting to gross misconduct as against the respondent no. 3 had adequately been proved in the disciplinary proceeding. She pleaded that the finding given by the Tribunal that the Bank has not been put to any serious loss could have hardly been a mitigating circumstance in favour of the workman. In this regard, she has placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in The State Bank of India vs. Bela Bagchi [(2005) 7 SCC 435] and a decision rendered by this Court in The Bank of India through the Chairman and the Managing Director & Anr. vs. The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment & Ors [2017 (2) PLJR 184].

5. She pleaded that in case of Bank employees, they are expected to deserve high standard of honesty and integrity being custodian of public money. She argued that the lenient treatment for gross misconduct on the part of respondent no. 3 by the Tribunal seems to be misplaced also for the fact that the said respondent never bothered to make any attempt to clear himself of the charges levelled against him i