K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Songara, learned advocate for petitioner bank and Mr. Shah, learned advocate for respondent. The petitioner bank has taken out present petition against two judgment (wherein concurrent finding of facts, concurrent final conclusion and concurrent direction have been passed by the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court) and an order in Review Application.

1.1 The Bank has challenged award dated 31.12.2010 passed in BIRT Application No. 5 of 2005 passed by learned Labour Court at Vadodara and the bank has also challenged the judgment dated 26.07.2011 passed by learned Industrial Court at Vadodara in Appeal No. 2 of 2011 whereby learned Industrial Court at Vadodara confirmed the judgment by the learned Industrial Court and rejected the Appeal filed by bank against the judgment by learned Labour Court. The petitioner bank has also challenged order dated 07.01.2012 passed by learned Industrial Court in Review Application No. 1 of 2011 whereby the learned Industrial Court rejected the Review Application seeking review/modification of the judgment dated 26.07.2011 passed in Appeal No. 2 of 2011 with reference to the date on which the claimant attained the age of superannuation.

2. So far as relevant facts are concerned, it has emerged from the record and from the submission by learned advocates that the claimant felt aggrieved by order dated 30.07.2005 passed by the petitioner bank whereby the bank terminated his service. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order the petitioner invoked Section 78 read with Section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter BIR Act) and challenged the said order 30.07.2005. In his application before learned Labour Court, the claimant alleged that the bank illegally and arbitrarily terminated his service vide order dated 30.07.2005 and before terminating his service, the bank did not follow procedure prescribed by law and also violated principles of natural justice in as much as his service came to be terminated without opportunity of hearing.

3. The bank opposed the application on diverse grounds. The bank contended that the service of the claimant is terminated because he had committed misappropriation of funds of bank, therefore, bank lost confidence in the claimant, who at the relevant time worked as Cashier-cum-Clerk. The bank also alleged that the wife of the claimant also was an employee of the bank and her service was terminated, however, claimant and the wife both acted in collusion and misappropriated sum of Rs. 50,000/- by misusing cheque in name of Ruchi Enterprise and that, therefore, it was found that it is not in the interest of bank to continue the claimant in service and consequently his service came to be terminated.

3.1 Learned Labour Court considered the material available on record and rival submissions. Learned Labour Court found that service of the claimant was terminated in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, learned Labour Court passed the judgment dated 31.12.2010 holding, inter alia, that the action of the bank of terminating service of the claimant by way of discharge with payment of one month Notice Pay is illegal and unsustainable. Learned Labour Court also observed that the claimant had in the meanwhile, attained age of superannuation and that, therefore, there was no question of actually reinstating the claimant. Consequently, learned Labour Court directed the bank to pay full wages and other benefits to the claimant from the date when his service came to be terminated to the date on which the claimant attained age of superannuation i.e. for the period from 30.07.2005 to 01.06.2010.

3.2 Feeling aggrieved by the said decision by learned Labour Court, the bank filed Appeal which was registered as Appeal (IC) No. 2 of 2011. Learned Industrial Court heard the parties and examined the material on record as well as impugned judgment. Thereafter, learned Labour Court passed judgment dated 26.07.2011 whereby learned I