GITA MITTAL, J, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an industrial award dated 3rd January, 2003 of the industrial adjudicator answering the reference made to it against the petitioner-workman.

( 2 ) THERE is no dispute to the material facts essential for adjudicating upon the subject matter of the present case and the same are briefly noticed hereafter.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was appointed as an Operations Supervisor with effect from 1st July, 1986 by the respondent no. 1 pursuant to a letter dated 1st July, 1986 on probation for a period of six months from the date of his joining. The duties of the petitioner in this letter of appointment clearly stipulated that the petitioner was responsible for the following duties;

"7. You will be responsible for:- (a) issuing delivery orders and sending out arrival notices. (b) maintaining registers on day to day basis. (c) handling of consolidations (sorting out cargo and transshipping the same promptly) (d) maintaining good relationship between the customer and CFI. (e) answering telephone calls politely. (f) you will complete all documents on charges collect, MAWB and HAWB and hand them over to the Finance Manager for remittances to be sent back to origin station. (g) you will be in charge of the billing on regular basis. (h) you will sport a tie during working hours. (i) no overtime will be paid. "

( 4 ) THE appointment was at an initial remuneration of Rs. 2150/-Confirmation of his services was effected by a communication of 1st January, 1987. The respondent no. 1 has placed reliance on the clause in this letter wherein the petitioner was notified that his services could be terminated by one month's notice from either side or if the company so elects, termination could be effected at any time giving one month's salary in lieu of such notice. There is also no dispute that the last drawn salary of the petitioner was Rs. 3630/-per month and that during the course of his employment, the petitioner was sent to the United States of America and Philippines for training in the international operational procedure in the freight forwarding industry in august, 1987, March, 1988 and June, 1989. Sometime in the year 1989 there was controversy with regard to accounting of the cash which had been withdrawn from the company in its Delhi office. According to the respondent no. 1, advances taken from the company in lieu of expenses to be incurred for the work of custom clearance were not settled or accounted for. On the allegation that in february, 1988, the petitioner had taken Rs. 20,000/- from the company in lieu of expenses for works done but vouchers in regard thereto were falsified, a memo/notice dated 27th June, 1989 (Exhibit W3) was given to the petitioner to which he replied by a letter of 6th July, 1981 (Exhibit W4 ). According to the respondent no. 1, an investigation was made and an explanation was called from the petitioner in the presence of senior officers of the company. As no explanation was given, his services were terminated by a letter dated 23rd september, 1989.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has disputed any such enquiry by the respondent no. 1. Aggrieved by such termination, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By an order bearing reference no. F24 (2226)/90-Lab dated 6th July, 1990 the following dispute was referred for adjudication to the industrial tribunal: "whether the termination of service of Shri Muralidharan K. is legal and/or justified and if not to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

( 6 ) THE petitioner assailed the termination on grounds of malice and also urged that the termination of the services without service of a charge sheet or notice or enquiry, was wholly illegal and that he had been penalised for earning the wrath of his officer. The petitioner claimed entitlement to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity