ORDER 1. The petitioner herein challenges Annexure-B order and Annexure-C award. Annexure-B is the order passed on Issue No. 1 in Ref. No. 151 of 1987 whereas Annexure-C is the final award in Ref. No. 151 of 1987. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner was working as the Secretary of respondent 1-Society on a monthly emolument of Rs. 500/-. He alleges that he was under the control of the Managing Director of this Society who has been duly lent by Mysore District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Mysore. The nature and the responsibilities of the petitioner was allegedly loan collections and preparation of loan papers. While so, Annexure-A charges were framed against the petitioner on 10-12-1986 and he was placed under suspension. It followed an enquiry. The petitioner alleges that he had requested for certain documents basing on which charge No. 2 has been framed. The Managing Director of the Society, who was the Inquiry Officer, declined to grant the same. Therefore, the petitioner alleges that he could not participate in the enquiry. He was accordingly set ex parte and enquiry proceeded with. Ultimately charges were proved against the petitioner and he was dismissed from service. He raised a dispute before the second respondent. A preliminary issue was framed regarding the validity of the enquiry. By Annexure-B order, the domestic enquiry was found proper. The only question then was whether findings were perverse and whether the punishment imposed is commensurate with the charges. The second respondent found that the charges were not perverse and that the punishment was not disproportionate to the charges. It accordingly upheld the order of dismissal. The order on this preliminary issue and award, Annexure-B and C, are challenged in these proceedings. 3. I have heard Smt. Sheela Krishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Somashekhar, learned Counsel for the respondent, at length. 4. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that setting the petitioner ex parte at the domestic enquiry and proceeding further is an illegality. She contends that the basic documents on which the management relied on to sustain the charges were not furnished to the petitioner in order that the delinquent may set up proper defence. It appears that the petitioner requested for being furnished with the circular which according to the delinquent formed the basis for framing charge No. 2. She contends that the basic documents on which the management relied on to sustain the charges were not furnished to the petitioner in order that the delinquent may set up proper defence. It appears that the petitioner requested for being furnished with the circular which according to the delinquent formed the basis for framing charge No. 2. The management submitted that the said circular was not available. Charge No. 2 framed is as hereunder: "2. It is reported by the following member-loaners that when you contacted them during the year 1985 to conduct case by case study of defaulters, you assured them that the loan will be written off and have created a very bad atmosphere for collection of overdue loans and thus you are responsible for landing the society in trouble". I do not know how the circular relied on by the petitioner was relevant for contesting the charges. It is not referred to in the charges anywhere that any reference is made by this employer in the circular which document the petitioner wanted to peruse. The employer did not rely on the said circular at all to base his charge. And if the delinquent wanted to rely on the charges to set up his defence, that is a totally different matter. As such there was no denial of a fair chance to defend and there is no justification for the petitioner to have abstained from the enquiry on this ground. The enquiry proceeded and at the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of charges. 5. The evidence entered before the Tribunal while considering the domestic enquiry was by means of examination of the Inquiry Officer. As such I do not think that fresh materials have been placed to sustain the charges. The only question then was whether there is justification in awarding the punishment for the charges. This point has already been considered by the Tribunal while considering the preliminary issue and it finds that the finding on this charge is not perverse. The question as to whether the finding was prima facie perverse or not and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges should have been relegated to be considered at the final stage of the disposal. The question as to whether the finding was prima facie perverse or not and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges should have been relegated to be considered at the final stage of the disposal. The enquiry at the stage of preliminary issue is merely regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry and the limited purpose is to ascertain as to whether the principle of natural justice has been complied with and as to whether the evidence tendered at the enquiry is sufficient to find the charges and whether the said evidence would conclude the charges. As to whether the findings entered are perverse or as to whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges are all matters to be gone into at the trial stage. But I find from Annexure-B order that while entering the findings on the domestic enquiry itself, the Tribunal has considered the question whether the findings are perverse and whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges. In this behalf thus there is an error committed by the Tribunal while dealing with the dispute referred to it. This finding on issue has also vitiated the finding on the question as to whether the punishment imposed is commensurate with the charges framed and proved. I do not find that the issue as such has been considered by the Tribunal. There is a running discussion on this aspect in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the award and that it is not sufficient consideration of this aspect. 6. There is yet another contention urged by the worker that he was denied granting of subsistence allowance while pending inquiry. That there is no dispute that subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner and the worker had to defend himself even without means to do so. It should be noted that the employee kept under suspension should be paid subsistence allowance. If the subsistence allowance is held back by the management, the employee may not be in a position to contest the case effectively. It might result in the employee not participating in the enquiry at all. When the means for livelihood is denied, it offends Article 21 of the Constitution and disables his defence. The finding of the Tribunal that non-payment of subsistence allowance did not seriously affect him is totally incorrect. It might result in the employee not participating in the enquiry at all. When the means for livelihood is denied, it offends Article 21 of the Constitution and disables his defence. The finding of the Tribunal that non-payment of subsistence allowance did not seriously affect him is totally incorrect. When without enough means he cannot even live, where is the question of him defending his case at all? In such a case setting him ex parte at the domestic inquiry itself is bad. If that inference is drawn, the position would be that there was an effective disablement of the employee from participating in the enquiry. Therefore, one cannot say that the employee deliberately stayed back from the enquiry. The finding entered at the enquiry is therefore not fair and just as the employee did not have an effective chance to defend himself. 7. The question then would be whether on the findings recorded on the charges the punishment can be sustained. This is a case where the employee had been denied subsistence allowance in the course of the inquiry. This has resulted in his being disabled from participating in the inquiry. That enquiry was vitiated it having proceeded after keeping the employee even without any means to live. We have to view the importance of punishment keeping this aspect in mind. 8. The learned Counsel submitted incidentally, after the finding on the domestic inquiry, that an opportunity should have been given to the worker to lead evidence to establish the excessiveness of the punishment imposed. This right of the worker is challenged by the employer. But, I do not think in this case this course is necessary. There is no case for the employer that the worker had been guilty of any previous misconduct. There is no clear documentary evidence to show that the worker had misappropriated any amount. As such nothing is placed on record to aggravate the allegations against the worker. A larger issue was raised by the learned Counsel Smt. Sheela Krishna regarding the right of the worker to lead evidence, once the Tribunal finds that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. But according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the event the domestic enquiry was not found proper, the management is always given a right to lead evidence. She submits that this rule has been laid down by various Supreme Court decisions. But according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the event the domestic enquiry was not found proper, the management is always given a right to lead evidence. She submits that this rule has been laid down by various Supreme Court decisions. According to her a similar opportunity be given to the worker to lead evidence to establish that punishment imposed is excessive vis-a-vis the charges. The right of the management to impose the punishment is inherent with the employer. The Industrial Law only calls upon him to justify the same. By means of Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, the Tribunal is given a power to examine the propriety of the punishment imposed. That does not lead to a stage of conferring the employee to join issue regarding the quantum of punishment on the proved charges. In the light of finding in this case on the larger issue, this question need not be gone into. It is unnecessary to grant such an opportunity even if it is shown the worker is entitled to do so. As in the facts and circumstances, I consider this question need not be gone into. I leave open this question. 9. But as regards the quantum of punishment, prime facie as the charges framed are proved and in the absence of any past history this extreme punishment of dismissal is excessive. But now I am informed that the petitioner has already crossed the age of 60. He is out of service for more than 12 years. He was prematurely terminated but due to his age he cannot be reinstated. Hence, the proper course would be to direct the management to pay a compensation in lieu of reinstatement. He would be entitled to backwages. Taking into account all these circumstances, I direct that the management shall pay to the petitioner worker a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of backwages and reinstatement. Whatever the subsistence allowance the worker was entitled to during the period when he was under suspension shall also be paid by the management over and above the above said Rs. 1,00,000/-. The amount shall be paid within four weeks from today. 10. Write petition is disposed of.