JUDGMENT K.S. Paripoornan, J. 1. The petitioner in the Original Petition is the Kerala State Cooperative Employees Association (Palghat Taluk Committee) represented by its President. The respondents to this Original Petition are the Labour Court, Kozhikode, and Mankara Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., No. P 363. The Original Petition seeks to quash Ext. P-2 award of the 1st respondent, dated 26th December, 1979 and for other appropriate reliefs. The Petitioner Union had raised an industrial dispute regarding the dismissal of Sri N. T. Surendranathan who was employed as a secretary of the 2nd respondent. The dispute was referred to the adjudication of Labour Court, Quilon, which was later transferred to the Kozhikode Court. The said Surendranathan was charge sheeted for various offences as seen from Ext. P-1. In brief the charges are (1) Non remittance of the amounts in time was not disclosed by the Secretary. (2) Substitution of useless gunnies, (3) Disrespect or indecent behaviour to bank officer's, (4) Indecent behaviour to members of the Bank, (5) Orders of the superiors and their instructions have not been properly conformed to and additional charge No. (6) Gross irregularities in the sale of fertiliser which resulted in the loss of fertiliser certificate to the Bank. The said Surendranathan, Secretary was suspended on 15th June 1974. He filed an explanation denying the charges. Finally by order, dated 25th November 1974 he was dismissed from service. It is seen that by order, dated 14th of December, 1978 the Labour Court, Kozhikode held in I.D. 93 of 1976 that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was not valid and not in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It also found that the domestic enquiry alleged to have been conducted by the management is not true. So the Labour Court allowed the parties an opportunity to adduce further evidence. The management recalled M.W. 1 and examined him. M.W. 1 was also recalled and examined. After taking additional evidence, the Labour Court by Ext. P-2 order held that except three charges (Nos. 3, 4 and 5 catalogued) the remaining charges which are of serious nature levelled against the worker have been established and therefore the dismissal of service has to be held to be justified. Hence the worker was held not entitled to any relief. The Original Petition is filed to quash Ext. P-2 order. 2. In this court, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hence the worker was held not entitled to any relief. The Original Petition is filed to quash Ext. P-2 order. 2. In this court, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. Ramachandran urged two points (1) The Labour Court has not considered nor did it apply its mind about the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the Secretary-delinquent, (2) Having found that the enquiry by the management is bad and that the conclusion arrived at by the management could be sustained only on the basis of additional evidence, the worker is entitled to the full wages till the date of the award. 3. The 1st respondent Labour Court has considered in detail to what extent the charges levelled against the delinquent are proved. It has come to the definite conclusion that the charges Nos. (1), (2) and (6) - not disclosing the non remittance of amounts in time, substitution of useless gunnies, and gross irregularities in the sale of fertiliser resulting in the bank loosing fertiliser certificate, have been established. In Para.12 of Ext. P-2 the Labour Court has held that "the charges so proved are of a serious nature" and have been established and so the dismissal from service was held to be justified. Counsel brought to my notice the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha 1980 (1) LLJ 137 at 175 and contended that the Labour Court has not applied its mind regarding the punishment to be imposed on the delinquent. In other words, there is nothing on record to show that the Labour Court appraised itself or evaluated the comparative nature of the charges proved and has not come to an independent conclusion as to whether the extreme punishment of order of dismissal is justified even though a few charges levelled against the delinquent were not proved. I do not see much force in this argument. The Labour Court has categorically come to the conclusion that the three charges proved are of 'serious nature' and they have been established and therefore the dismissal from service is justified. It appears to me that there is a proper consideration of the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the delinquent for the charges proved before the Labour Court. 4. It appears to me that there is a proper consideration of the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the delinquent for the charges proved before the Labour Court. 4. The next point urged by the counsel for the petitioner is, that at any rate, the Labour, Court erred in holding that the worker is not entitled to any relief. Counsel submitted that the labour court itself found in Para.6 of Ext. P-2 that the enquiry held by the management is bad in law. The order, dated 14th December, 1978 held that the enquiry conducted by the management is violative of natural justice. So, such an enquiry is void in law. It is because of this, additional evidence was let in before the Labour Court whereby the conclusion of the management was sustained. In such circumstances from the date of suspension 15th June 1974 to 26th December, 1979 the date of the award of the Labour Court the worker is entitled to full wages. Counsel submitted that pending enquiry the payment of subsistence allowance is governed by Act 27 of 1973, Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972. As per S.3 of the said Act for the first 90 days of suspension the subsistence allowance shall be 50 per cent of the wages, when it exceeds 90 days it shall be 75 per cent and when it exceeds 180 days it shall be full wages. Counsel contended that in this case the suspension was effected on 15th June, 1974. The order of dismissal, dated 25th November, 1974 is void since it violated natural justice. So from the expiry of six months from 15th June, 1974 to 26th December, 1979, the date of the award, the worker is entitled to full wages. This ground is raised by way of additional ground in the petition filed, dated 19th March, 1981 and has been allowed by this court. Counsel prays that the petitioner is entitled to full wages from 15th December, 1974 to 26th December 1979. The respondents' counsel was not able to successfully meet this argument. This ground is raised by way of additional ground in the petition filed, dated 19th March, 1981 and has been allowed by this court. Counsel prays that the petitioner is entitled to full wages from 15th December, 1974 to 26th December 1979. The respondents' counsel was not able to successfully meet this argument. It is clear on a reading of S.3 of Act 27 of 1973, in the light of the Labour Court holding by order, dated 14th December, 1978 that the enquiry conducted by the management is violative of natural justice rendering it void, the worker is entitled to full back-wages from 15th December, 1974 to 26th December, 1979. I hereby declare so. The 1st respondent Labour Court will give effect to this direction. Ext. P-2 award passed by the 1st respondent will stand modified to this extent. 5. The Original Petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.