M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

1. In this Original Petition filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short'LIC') challenging Ext. P8 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam interfering with the punishment of 'removal from service' imposed by the LIC and ordering instead 'reinstatement without backwages', the important question that arises is whether the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal stands barred with regard to

claims made by employees of LIC.

2. The 2nd respondent entered service of the LIC as an Apprentice Development Officer on 1.3.1984. On 1.11.1984 he was appointed as Probationary Development Officer. The probation period was one year. On 1.11.1985 the probation was extended by one more year and on completion thereof, his probation was declared with effect from 1.11.1986.

3. On 6.12.1986 one Kuttappa Panicker wrote to the LIC stating that his son P.K. Sasidharan Nair in whose name a new proposal for insurance was presented by the petitioner had actually passed away on 4.5.1977. As per Ext. P2 order, the Divisional Manager of the LIC ordered an enquiry into the matter and one M. Mukundan was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer found, vide Ext. P3 (see page 29 of the OP) that charges 1 to 4 relating to failure to show honesty, integrity and devotion to duty alleged against the 2nd respondent stood proved and that charge 5, which deals with furnishing false and fabricated particulars about the non-existent life to be assured and of manipulation to forge a signature on the proposal form, alone stood unestablished. Based on the Enquiry Report filed on 21.3.1988, Ext. P3 show cause notice (see page 27 of the O.P.) was issued to the 2nd respondent under Regulation.39(1)(f) of the Staff Regulations, 1960. After considering Ext. P4 reply presented by the 2nd respondent, he was removed from service as per Order dated 19.4.1989. The 2nd respondent filed an application challenging the punishment before the Zonal Manager of the LIC, which was also dismissed.

4. As per order dated 18.2.1990 passed by the Central Government, the dispute raised by the 2nd respondent with regard to the legality of the disciplinary proceedings and the propriety of the punishment was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Kollam. I.D. No. 22 of 1991 was registered on that basis. After hearing both sides, Ext. P8 order was passed therein. The Tribunal found that in the absence of any wrongful loss caused to the Management or of any wrongful gain to the 2nd respondent arising from the presentation of the proposal form and considering the fact that the 2nd respondent only signed by the papers presented by an LIC agent and in the absence of evidence regarding Charge No. 5, which alone was the major charge, the punishment of removal from service was unjustified. It was thereupon that the 2nd respondent was directed to be reinstated albeit without backwages or any other benefits.

5. Sri. E. Subramani, who represented the petitioner-LIC submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has actually no jurisdiction to go into the dispute. According to him, in view of the LIC Amendment Act, 1981 and the Regulations framed invoking powers thereunder, the Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction stood barred. Case law was also relied on in that regard. He also argued that having upheld the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to the Charges 1 to 4, the Tribunal erred in substituting the punishment, which the employer justly imposed on the delinquent.

6. According to Sri. Sudhakara Prasad, who appeared for the 2nd respondent, the Industrial Tribunal has ample jurisdiction to go into the disputed aspects. Once a reference was made to it by a competent Government merely because Staff Regulations have been framed under the LIC Amendment Act, 1981, it cannot be said that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was barred. According to him, the question is whether there is any provision in the Act or Regulation, which debars the jurisdiction of the Tr