Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, a checking clerk in the Kaloor Branch of the 1st respondent bank, was dismissed from service on 10-7-1978 after a domestic enquiry finding him guilty on the charges framed against him based on a complaint Ext. P7 dated 28-9-1976 by a depositor in the bank. The 1st respondent bank was later amalgamated with the State Back of India impleaded as the additional 3rd respondent in the O. P. On receipt of the complaint Ext P7 the Manager of the bank issued a memo Ext. P1 to the petitioner calling for explanation for the unauthorised withdrawal of Rs. 11,100/- from the savings bank account of the complaint on 31-5-1976. It is stated in Ext. P1 that on verification of the relevant records it was noticed that a spare cheque leaf was issued by the petitioner on 28-5-1976 and the same was utilised for the unauthorised withdrawal which was seen checked by the petitioner before payment was effected. Ext. P2 dated 1-10-1976 is a copy of the explanation submitted by the petitioner wherein it is stated: "However, the spare cheque leaf mentioned in the memo was not actually issued by me as could be seen from the endorsement on the cheque leaf but since the relevant entry for the issuance of the cheque was not signed by the concerned person, which was found out by the Internal auditors, to rectify a mistake I have entered my Initials in the relevant entry, I remember that I have passed a cheque when it was brought to me for the necessary endorsement of passing according to the procedure of the Bank, which was done with due diligence." By Ext. P3 order of the Chairman and Managing Director of the bank the petitioner was suspended with effect from 2-10-1976 pending disciplinary proceedings against him. The Personnel Officer of the bank issued Ext. P5 charge sheet dated 24-11-1977 on the basis of the complaint Ext. P7 and the allegations contained in Ext. PI. The petitioner denied the charges as per his written statement Ext. P6. The Law Officer of the bank was nominated to conduct a domestic enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner and the Personnel Officer was nominated as the Presenting Officer. The Law Officer on enquiry found the charges proved and accepting the findings, the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the bank with effect from 10-7-1978. P6. The Law Officer of the bank was nominated to conduct a domestic enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner and the Personnel Officer was nominated as the Presenting Officer. The Law Officer on enquiry found the charges proved and accepting the findings, the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the bank with effect from 10-7-1978. On these facts the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and on failure of the conciliation proceedings the dispute was referred by the Government of India to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras for adjudication. 2. The petitioner submitted Ext. P9 statement of claim before the Industrial Tribunal and the management submitted its written statement, a copy of which is produced as Ext. R1. The Tribunal after adjudication passed Ext. P10 award dated 15-6-1981 wherein it is found that the domestic enquiry was just and fair, it was not vitiated by any of the circumstances alleged by the petitioner and was perfectly in consonance with the principles of natural justice. It was also found that the findings arrived at the domestic enquiry were based on evidence and cannot be assailed. On these findings the Tribunal held that the dismissal of the petitioner was fully justified and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 3. Counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext. P10 award as one passed in violation of natural justice on two grounds viz., (1) the Law Officer who conducted the domestic enquiry is an officer lower in rank than the Personnel Officer who was the presenting officer on behalf of the management, and (2) the petitioner's prayer for the services of a lawyer to defend him was wrongly rejected by the law officer at the domestic enquiry. 4. It is true that the law officer entrusted with the domestic enquiry is lower in rank than the presenting officer. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the notice of domestic enquiry served on the petitioner shows that the enquiring officer was nominated by the personnel officer who himself figured as the presenting officer on behalf of the management. I do not think that this circumstance would vitiate the domestic enquiry if the enquiry is otherwise proper and legal. The award Ext. P10 refers to the proceedings at the domestic enquiry. All materials relied on by management were disclosed to the petitioner. He was also given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. I do not think that this circumstance would vitiate the domestic enquiry if the enquiry is otherwise proper and legal. The award Ext. P10 refers to the proceedings at the domestic enquiry. All materials relied on by management were disclosed to the petitioner. He was also given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Except for the permission to engage a lawyer all ether requests of the petitioner were granted such as for inspection of documents and for a list of witnesses to be examined on behalf of the management to enable him to cross-examine them. The enquiry was adjourned at the instance of the petitioner to enable him to cross-examine the witnesses. The Tribunal found that the workman had been afforded fair and reasonable opportunities to meet the charges levelled against him and he was also granted several adjournments to enable him to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the management. The mere fact that the domestic enquiry was entrusted to the Law Officer of the bank and management had its Personnel Officer as presenting officer will not vitiate the enquiry. The Supreme Court in Saran Motors v. Vishwanath and another (1964 (2) LLJ 139) had rejected the contention that a domestic enquiry held by a lawyer who used to be engaged by the management for the conduct of its cases should be held to be vitiated by bias. It was accordingly held that the findings cannot be invalidated for the reason that the enquiry was held by a lawyer who used to be engaged by the management. It is stated at page 141: "II is well-known that enquiries of this type are generally conducted by the officers of the employer and in the absence of any special individual bias attributable to a particular officer, it has never been held that the enquiry is bad just because it is conducted by an officer of the employer. If that be so, it is obviously unsound to take the view that a lawyer, who is not a paid officer of the employer, is incompetent to hold the enquiry, because he is the employer's lawyer and is paid remuneration for holding the enquiry. Therefore, the first reason given by the tribunal for ignoring the findings of the domestic enquiry must be reversed". Therefore, the first reason given by the tribunal for ignoring the findings of the domestic enquiry must be reversed". In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar (AIR 1683 SC 109) it is re-affirmed that a domestic enquiry is a managerial function and the enquiring officer is more often a man of the establishment. It is therefore clear that if the enquiry had been fair and the delinquent employee had reasonable opportunities for access to the records, to cross-examine witnesses and to defend himself, it cannot be said that the enquiry is vitiated for the reason that it was held by an officer of the establishment. 5. The next question is whether the enquiry is vitiated for the reason that the petitioner's request to engage a lawyer was not accepted. Referring to this aspect of the case the Tribunal states that by Ext. W17 reply of the enquiring officer the request of the petitioner to have the services of a professional lawyer was rejected giving him permission to have the services of a friend or a colleague to defend him. The Tribunal also finds that the management was not assisted by a trained lawyer at the enquiry and the workman was not pitted against a person trained in law in the matter of his defence. The Tribunal refers also to Ext. M17 settlement between the management and its workmen under which an employee may have the services of a lawyer to defend him if only the management permits. The management had not given any such permission and the petitioner had no right to be defended by a lawyer at an enquiry where the management did not have the assistance of a lawyer to present its case. As held by the Supreme Court in Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co. Ltd. (1960 (2) LLJ 228) domestic enquiries are cot enquiries in a court of law and ordinarily in these enquiries simple questions of fact as to whether certain acts of misconduct were committed by a workman or not only fall to be considered. Straight forward questioning which a person of fair intelligence and knowledge of conditions prevailing in the establishment will be able to do will ordinarily help to elicit the truth. Straight forward questioning which a person of fair intelligence and knowledge of conditions prevailing in the establishment will be able to do will ordinarily help to elicit the truth. In most cases it was held that the accused workman will be best suited and fully able to cross-examine the witnesses who nave spoken against him and to examine witnesses in his favour. In Board of Trustees' case (supra) it is held at page 113: "la fact one can go so far as to say that the Enquiry Officer in order to be fair and just, whenever he finds the employer appointing legally trained persons as Presenting-cum-Prosecuting Officers must enquire from the delinquent employee before commencement of enquiry whether he would like to take assistance of a legal practitioner." That was a case where the management had the services of two legally trained persons as presenting¬cum-prosecuting officers against the employee and the failure of the Enquiry Officer to allow the employee to have the services of a legally trained person for his defence was held to vitiate the domestic enquiry. In the present case, as noticed earlier, me questions involved in the enquiry were only pure questions of fact and the management had not engaged a legally trained person as presenting officer. A Division Bench of this Court in Saran v. Cochin Refineries Ltd. (1985 KLT 1171) after considering the decisions in Board of Trustees' case (supra) and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others ex parte Tarrant and Another and R v. Wormwood Scrubs Prison Board of Visitors, ex parte Anderson and others (1984 (1) All ER 799) held at page 1174: "We are fairly clear in our minds that in the absence of rules it is in the discretion of (he Enquiry Officer to permit legal representation at a domestic enquiry unless the delinquent Officer is pitted against a legally trained person engaged by the management as Presenting Officer." I see no merit in the O.P. and it accordingly dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs.