K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner bank, and Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. The petitioner bank is aggrieved by an award dated 12.12.2005 passed by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Industrial Dispute (Reference CGITA) No. 926 of 2004 (Old (ITC) No. 1 of 1990 whereby the learned Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the petitioner bank against the respondent and directed the petitioner bank to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and to pay 25% backwages.

3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that upon being dismissed from service on the ground that the allegations and charge levelled against him vide charge sheet dated 4.9.1986 and additional charge sheet dated 19.1.1987 are proved in the domestic inquiry, the respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the learned Tribunal. In the statement of claim filed by the respondent, he claimed that at the relevant time, he was working as godown keeper at the petitioner's bank's Vaniyavadi Branch, Rajkot. He claimed that he was visited