The principles of natural justice must be judged in the context of each case, and unless real prejudice is caused, the enquiry will be considered fair. Retrospective dismissal is not valid, but the mere retrospectiveness does not invalidate the order entirely.

J.B. Koshy, J.

1. Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No. 41 of 1983 is challenged in this original petition. Petitioner while working as a clerk in the first respondent Cooperative Bank was suspended on 9-9-1974. He was dismissed on 24-1-1975 without any enquiry. Later the dismissal was withdrawn and he was reinstated and again he was suspended on 29-3-1975 pending enquiry. Three counts of allegations were raised against him. (1) He received amounts from two members and credited the amount in S.T. Loan Ledger of the Bank in his own hand and closed the Short Term Loans. But this was not entered in the Cash Book and he misappropriated the same. (2) He issued 11 fabricated receipts and received an amount of Rs. 9,980.45. By not entering the same in the Cash Book, he misappropriated the amount. (3) The records were cooked up to the effect that a chitty security bond has been fabricated with the name of a prized subscriber without his knowledge and forged his signature and misappropriated Rs. 475/- in connivance with another clerk of the Bank. He gave an explanation denying the charges and also submitted that he did not misappropriate the amounts. It is submitted that he has acted honestly and in good faith. He was working under the orders of the Secretary and he had not kept separate receipt books knowing them to be false or fabricated. He did not misappropriate the money of the members. As soon as he received the money, he . entrusted the same to the Secretary. If the Secretary has not credited the Cash Book, it is not his responsibility. The Loan Ledger and other books were written by him at the instruction of the Secretary. Then with regard to the third charge he stated that the chitty bond was written as instructed by the Secretary and he signed it only as a witness. As the explanations were not found satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted by an outsider, a retired Munsiff who was practising as an advocate. In the enquiry he was found guilty and on the basis of the enquiry findings he was dismissed from service by order dated 15-9-1975 with effect from 9-9-1974, the date of his original suspension.

2. Even though the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 15-9-1975, the industrial dispute was referred for adjudication only in 1983. It was also averred that the then Secretary resigned from the service and he was also punished in criminal proceedings. Another junior clerk involved in the incident was also dismissed and no industrial dispute was raised by him. Before the Labour Court, no separate claim statement was filed. But his complaint filed before the District Labour Officer was treated as his claim. The Labour Court found that enquiry was fair and misconducts were proved in the enquiry and that the petitioner's dismissal was correct. Aggrieved by the above award this writ petit ion is filed. The major contentions raised by him are: (1) The enquiry proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice because in the beginning of the enquiry he was cross examined by the enquiry officer. In other words, the enquiry was started with cross examination of the charged employee and cross examination by the enquiry officer violates the principles of natural justice. (2) While confirming the findings of the enquiry officer the Labour Court did not exercise the jurisdiction under S.11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act in reappraising the evidence of the witnesses in the enquiry. (3) He was not paid any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension pending enquiry and therefore, action of the Society was arbitrary and oppressive rendering the entire proceedings invalid.

3. It is true that if the principles of natural justice are violated, the enquiry should be set aside. It is the duty of the employer to give a fair opportunity to the charge sheeted worker to defend himself. It is contended that cross examination of the charge sheeted worker in the beginning of the enquiry, by the enquiry officer is violative of t