The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to determine the validity of the domestic enquiry and the workman status before proceeding with the Industrial Dispute, and the procedure for leading fresh evidence as per legal precedents.

Both the writ petitions have been filed by the Management of the North Arcot District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Vellore. W.P. No. 746 of 1999 is filed challenging the Award dated 20.3.1998 passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D. No. 840 of 1993. By the aforesaid Award, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent therein, with full backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. In W.P. No. 747 of 1999, the challenge is to the Award dated 20.3.1998 made in I.D. No. 7 of 1994 granting the benefit of reinstatement with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits to the second respondent.

2. Pending the writ petitions, in W.P. No. 746 of 1999, interim stay was granted on 22.01.1999 and it was continued until further orders by an order dated 03. 1999 and further modified by an order dated 110. 2000. In W.P. No. 747 of 1999, this Court, by an order dated 03. 1999, granted interim stay. Subsequently, on an application taken by the workman, wages at the rate of Rs. 2800/-per month under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, I.D. Act] was directed to be made and also the Management was directed to deposit Rs.3 lakhs to the credit of I.D. No. 840 of 1993. On such deposit, the second respondent in that case was directed to withdraw Rs. 1 lakh and the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was directed to be reinvested for a period of four years and quarterly interest was also directed to be paid.

.3. In W.P. No. 746 of 1999, the second respondent was working as a Cashier and the cash chest was under double lock system with one key being retained by the second respondent and the other key with the Branch Manager and unless both keys are used, the chest cannot be opened. It was submitted that without the co-operation and collusion between the Cashier and the Manager, the safe room and the respective cash chests cannot be handled.

4. During May 1989, the second respondent was the Cashier for the second shift. But on that day, he worked for both the shifts since the other Cashier had gone on leave. On 20.5.1989 which happened to be a Saturday, he handled the cash chest of both the shifts and also the keys including that of the Manager. The then Branch Manager was in the habit of coming late to the branch and he always used to attest the signature of the staff without verifying the same and he left the place even before the closing of the shift at 4.00 pm. Since Sunday happened to be a holiday, on Monday, i.e., on 25. 1989, when the Bank was opened, it was found though it was properly sealed, but a sum of Rs. 4.35 lakhs was found to be short in the cash chest. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was held against the second respondent, the Branch manager and the peon and in the separate domestic enquiries held, the second respondent was dismissed from service. As against the same, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court and it was taken on file as I.D. No. 840 of 1993.

5. A counter statement has been filed seeking permission to substantiate the charges in case the Labour Court holds that the enquiry conducted by the Management was vitiated.

6. Before the Labour Court, in I.D. No. 840 of 1993, entire enquiry proceedings were filed and marked as Exs. M1 to M.7. The Labour Court, without framing an issue as to whether the enquiry was fair and proper, held that the charges were not proved. In paragraph 6, it held that the charge of theft was not proved by supporting evidence both oral and documentary. In paragraph 7, the Labour Court also held that mere production of document is inconsistent and Exs. M.1 to M.7 are nothing but documents relating to domestic enquiry. In that view of the matter, it granted relief to the second respondent.

.7. In W.P. No. 747 of 1999, the second respondent was the Branch Manager and he was dismissed for the theft in the cash chest and a criminal case was also filed against him. He