The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to exercise the power of the Labour Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as held in Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha.

1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Messenger in State Bank of India, Mudukulathur Branch on 20.1.1982. Subsequently, he was promoted as Clerk in the year 1992.

2. While he was serving in Ramanathapuram Branch, a charge sheet dated 30.8.2004 was issued against him. In the charge sheet, it was alleged that the following irregularities were committed by him:

i. You had utilised the services of R.Palani, Messenger, for preparing the challan, in order to create an impression that the voucher was prepared by the Messenger wrongly/inadvertently.

ii. You did not sign the credit challan even after the request of Shri R.Palani, Messenger, deliberately with mala fide intention.

iii. The account number mentioned in the draft was 05/6101. But you had knowingly arranged to credit the proceeds of the draft beonging to a customer to your Current Account No.0109 00 9501500 with mala fide intention.

iv. Even though you were aware of the fact the account No.of the benefiary was mentioned in the draft as 05/6101, you have failed to initiate appropriate steps to refer the matter to the Chief Manager or Manager (PB) in this regard.

v. Although the instrument in question was received by you on 27.1.2004 and adequate time was available at your disposal to verify whether the amount of draft REALLY PERTAINED TO YOU, you had failed to initiate proper steps to verify the beneficiary's correct account number in order to afford credit of the proceeds of the draft.

vi. You have withdrawn the proceeds of the said draft credited to your S.B.Account No.0119 00 95015 in two installments of Rs.5000/-each on 29.1.2004 and 7.2.2004. Thus you have unauthorisedly utilised the customer's money for a period of more than 2 months with malafide and fraudulent intention.

vii. In order to suppress your fraudulent acts, you have initiated steps with the courier agency to solve the problem without the knowledge of the Chief Manager or Manager (PB) of the Branch. In this connection you have paid the defrauded amount to the courier service agent, Shri Shibu, on 28.4.2004 by means of your Current Account Cheque No.008341 dated 28.4.2004.

3. The crux of the allegation in the charge sheet is that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.10,000/- belonging to a customer for a period of more than 2 months for his personal benefit.

4. An enquiry was conducted. Pursuant to the enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority by an order dated 15.12.2005. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the appellate authority was rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 30.3.2006. The appellate authority modified the punishment from 'dismissal from service' into 'removal from service'.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner took the matter of his non-employment before the Conciliation Machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Conciliation Officer gave a failure report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour passed an order dated 18.4.2007 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act referring the Industrial Dispute regarding the non-employment of the petitioner before the first respondent Tribunal.

6. The first respondent Tribunal took on file the industrial dispute as I.D.No.17 of 2007.

7. The petitioner filed a detailed claim statement. He stated that on 27.1.2004, while he was busy in his seat work as single window operator, a cover addressed to "S.Chandrasekar, State Bank of India, Ramanathapuram Branch" was delivered to him by a courier agent. The courier contained a foreign draft for Rs.10,000/- favoring S.Chandrasekar without any other enclosure, i.e., there was no covering letter along with the draft. The petitioner was the only person available at State Bank of India, Ramanathapuram Branch under the name of S.Chandrasekar at the material point of time.

8. The petitioner further stated that since he received a foreign remittance on an earlier occasion from his relati