The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Clause 17(a) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.1989, the principles of natural justice, and the right to livelihood.

S. Manikumar, J.

Being aggrieved by the award made in I.D. No. 357 of 2004, dated 23.2.2010, the Chief Manager, Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Karur has filed the present writ petition. Record of proceedings shows that the litigation has started in the year 2004, and the award passed earlier by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai, dated 22.8.2006, directing the bank to reinstate the petitioner with backwages has been set aside by this Court in W.P. (MD). No. 9076 of 2006 dated 15.2.2008 and that I.D. No. 357 of 2004 has been remanded back to the Presiding Officer of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, to allow the petitioner bank to adduce additional evidence, justifying the action of the bank, in not allowing the petitioner to rejoin the bank, afford sufficient opportunity to the workman and to pass orders on merits, and in accordance with law. Thus, it is the second round of litigation between the parties.

2. Facts deduced from the materials on record is that the second respondent was a clerk in Lakshmi Village Bank, at Kandhili Branch, Thiruppathru Taluk. His services were terminated with effect from 26.2.1994. Challenging the termination, he had raised an industrial dispute which has been referred to the first respondent. The first respondent which took up the Industrial dispute as I.D. No. 357 of 2004 and by award dated 22.8.2006 held that the termination of the workman herein, was not justified and that as the workman had not adduced any evidence regarding his gainful employment, the Tribunal has directed reinstatement of the second respondent/workman, in service, with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits with 50% of the backwages while ordering reinstatement. The first respondent Tribunal has also observed that there was no prohibition for initiating departmental action against the second respondent/workman.

3. Challenging the award, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 9076 of 2006 and this Court, by an order dated 15.2.2008, set aside the award and remanded the matter back to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, with a direction to allow the petitioner bank to adduce additional evidence justifying the action of the bank, afford sufficient opportunity to the workman and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

4. Thereafter, the Central Government Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai has framed the following points for consideration:

(i) Whether the action of the respondent/management in terminating the services of the petitioner Sri. A. Selva Kumar with effect from 26.2.1994 without conducting any enquiry is justified?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

5. The second respondent/workman examined himself as W.W. 1. He has marked Exhibits W-1 to W-12. The writ petitioner bank has examined two witnesses. The bank has marked Exhibits M-1 to M-65. The Labour Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties, with reference to Clause 17 of the bipartite settlement, Exhibit W-13, and at paragraph 13 held as follows:

13. Instead of justifying why petitioner was not allowed to join duty respondent has only tried to justify why he has to be terminated. Once a notice has been sent requiring the petitioner to report for duty that he was not allowed to join duty is not at all justified. The first and foremost thing for the banks to have done is to permit him to join duty. The respondent/management acted arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The termination is one brought about without holding an enquiry. This is against justice, equity and good conscience and law as well as the broader principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner is to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefit with 50% of back wages. It is made clear that thereafter the respondent/management will be at liberty in taking depa