H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was working in the respondent Vysya Bank Limited, ('the Bank' for short), Bangalore, as a Second Division Clerk. While working at Ulsoor branch of the Bank, petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 18. 6. 1982. The allegations in the charge memo related to the period 18. 6. 1973 to 7. 10. 1982. In the charge memo itself there was an indication that the management of the Bank intends to hold a domestic enquiry in relation to those charges. Therefore employee was asked to file his explanation if any, by way of defence statement. The workman had filed his explanation on 12. 7. 1982 and in that he had denied the charges alleged against him. The Disciplinary Authority of the Bank had appointed an Enquiry officer to enquiry into the allegations made in the charge memo dated 18. 6. 1982. After notice to the workman, the first sitting of the enquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer on 31. 12. 1982. On the very day, petitioner had made a request to the Enquiry Officer to permit him to engage the services of a Trade Union leader or a practicing advocate to defend him in the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry officer had rejected the request made by the workman by his order dated 19. 7. 1982 by stating that he has no power to permit the workman to engage the services of a legal practitioner to defend him in the enquiry proceedings. Thereafter the workman had approached the management of the Bank by making a representation to permit him to have the assistance of a legal practitioner since the same is provided under the By-partite settlement itself. This request is rejected by the management by its order dated 31. 7. 1984. During the pedency of these proceedings a second charge memo was issued to the workman dated 13. 10. 1983. Since the management did not permit the workman to have the assistance of a legal practitioner, the workman did not participate in the further enquiry proceedings. Therefore, placing him ex-parte the Enquiry Officer had proceeded to complete the proceedings and thereafter submitted his findings. 10. 1983. Since the management did not permit the workman to have the assistance of a legal practitioner, the workman did not participate in the further enquiry proceedings. Therefore, placing him ex-parte the Enquiry Officer had proceeded to complete the proceedings and thereafter submitted his findings. In that he was of the view that the workman is guilty of all the charges alleged in the charge memo After receipt of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the records of the enquiry proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-Bank has proceeded to pass an order dated 7. 8. 1985 dismissing the workman from the services. of the respondent-Bank. Aggrieved by that order, petitioner had approached the Ministry Of Labour, Central Government, to make reference under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The central Government in exercise of its power under Section 10 (1} (d) and 2 (AJ of the Act by its order dated 14. 12. 1987 referred to following dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore for adjudication. The point of reference was:"whether the action of the management of Vysya Bank Limited, bangalore in dismissing the services of Sri B. V. Nagarajachar, clerk with effect from 7. 8. 1985 is justified? It not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"before the Labour Court petitioner had filed his claim statement and in that a specific contention had been raised in the effect that the enquiry proceedings held by the Enquiry Officer are in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent-Bank, the second party before the Labour Court had field its counter claim by taking that the work has no absolute right to be defended in a enquiry proceedings by an advocate. Further, they had taken up a specific contention that the enquiry proceedings was not only fair but in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court had raised a preliminary issue for an answer. The preliminary issue was whether the enquiry proceedings held by the Enquiry Officer was fair and proper. After a detailed discussion, the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court had passed an order holding that the enquiry proceedings held by the management is not only fair but also proper and in accordance with rules of natural justice. Aggrieved by the findings of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue, petitioner was before this Court in W. P 12655/1998. After a detailed discussion, the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court had passed an order holding that the enquiry proceedings held by the management is not only fair but also proper and in accordance with rules of natural justice. Aggrieved by the findings of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue, petitioner was before this Court in W. P 12655/1998. This Court by its order dated ( 2 ) 1. 1989, was pleased to reject the Writ Petition following the observation made by the Apex Court in Maheshwari's case. Thereafter the Labour Court by its award dated 25. 1. 1989 answered the reference in negative and in favour of the management. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court dated 25. 1. 1989, petitioner is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner primarily contends that since the By-partite settlement between the management and majority of the workman gives a right to the workman to engage the services of a legal practitioner to defend a workman in a domestic enquiry proceedings, the rejection of such a request by the management is opposed to the standing orders and in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, the enquiry proceedings are vitiated, econdly, it is contended that the rejection of the workman's request examine Smt. Kamalamma, Sri Venkatramaiah. Sri Krishna Shetty on extraneous ground is also bad and therefore, proceedings are vitiated and the order made by the Disciplinary Authority basing on such an invalid proceedings is invalid. Lastly, since the Labour Court failed to exercise its powers under Section 11-A of the Act, the award passed by the labour Court is bad and invalid. ( 3 ) IN support of the first legal issue canvassed, the learned Counsel brings to my notice the procedure in the Standing Orders of the Bank. Clause 19. 12 of the Standing Orders of the Bank provides for the procedure for holding a domestic enquiry. The said provision is extracted for the reason the main argument of the learned counsel for petitioner revolves round this particular clause. It reads as under: 19. 12. Clause 19. 12 of the Standing Orders of the Bank provides for the procedure for holding a domestic enquiry. The said provision is extracted for the reason the main argument of the learned counsel for petitioner revolves round this particular clause. It reads as under: 19. 12. The procedure in such cases shall be as follows:- (a) An employee against whom disciplinary action is proposed or likely to be taken shall be given a charge-sheet clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and a date shall be fixed for enquiry, sufficient time being given to him to enable him to prepare and give his explanation so also to produce any evidence that he may wish to tender in his defence. He shall be permitted to appear before the Officer conducting the enquiry, to cross-examine any witness on whose evidence the charge rests and a examine witness and produce other evidence in his defence. He shall also be permitted to be defended - (i) (x) by a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry, (y) where the employee is not a member of any trade union of bank employees on the aforesaid date, by a representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank in which he is employed. (ii) at the request of the said union by a representative of the state Federation or All India Organization to which such union is affiliated; or (iii) with the Bank's permission, by a lawyer. (ii) at the request of the said union by a representative of the state Federation or All India Organization to which such union is affiliated; or (iii) with the Bank's permission, by a lawyer. ( 4 ) A reading of the aforesaid provision apart from others would prescribe that the Enquiry Officer would permit the workman to be defended by a representative of a registered trade union of the bank employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry and if for any reason, the workman is not a member of a registered trade union of the employees of the bank in which he is employed on the aforesaid date, by a representative of a registered union of employees of the bank in which he is employed or in the alternative, at the request of the said union by a representative of the State Federation or All India organisation to which such union is affiliated and lastly, with the permission of the Bank, by a lawyer. ( 5 ) THE argument of the learned Counsel is entirely based on the standing order and nothingelse. Therefore before I advert to this aspect of the mater, let me first notice how this issue is answered by the presiding Judge of the Labour Court in its order dated 1. 8. 1988. 16. The learned Counsel for the second party strongly contended that the bipartite settlement binds both the parties and since the first party workman had not exhausted all his remedies, by availing of the opportunities shown in clause 19. 12. (a) (i) (x) or 19. 12 (a) (ii) he had no right to claim the assistance of a lawyer under sub-clause (iii ). He contended that the aloresaid authority supports his contention. The bipartite settlement binds both the parties and there is no contention that it does not bind the first party workman. From the forgoing discussion it is too obvious to be denied by the first party workman that he never moved his union to make any request to the federation or to the All India organisation to provide him some representative to defend him in the enquiries. From the forgoing discussion it is too obvious to be denied by the first party workman that he never moved his union to make any request to the federation or to the All India organisation to provide him some representative to defend him in the enquiries. In para 4 of his evidence WW-1 the workman states that he had given a representation to his union, they had called him, he went and saw them and gave the case papers, they thought about it for 15 days and some body in the union told him that the union is not prepared to take his case. There is nothing in his evidence to indicate that he never made any oral or written request to the union that the union may atleast made a request to the federation or to All India Organisation, and provide him with the assistance or representative of his choice and thus avail of the facility shown in Clause I9. 12 (a) (ii ). On the contrary, in para 25 WW-1 swears that he insisted upon the management that he should be given the assistannce of only Sri Scindhia. No provision of the bipartite settlement or any rule is shown to hold that he was entitled to insist upon such a thing. Sub-clause (iii) shows that only with the permission of the management, he could have had the assistance of the lawyer. I find that it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice had been denied for not giving him the assistance of Sri Scindhia, the lawyer under the sub-clause (iii) the simple reason that he did not exhaust the facility provided under clause 19. 12 (a) (ii ). In other aspects, both the enquiries conducted by MW-1 are in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the terms of bipartite settlement. " ( 6 ) THE Labour Court had rejected the argument advanced before it on two grounds. Firstly, that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the workman had requested the union of the Bank employees in which he is employed atleast to be defended in the enquiry proceedings by a representative of the State Federation or all India Organisation to which such union is affiliated and without exhausting the said facility provided, he couid not have sought for the assistance of legal practitioner to defend him in the enquiry proceedings. Secondly, the learned Judge is of the view that the workman has no absolute right to be defended in an enquiry proceedings except with the permission of the management. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel Sri Lakshminarayan, for petitioner and also analysed the findings of the Labour Court on the aforesaid issue. The Labour court in its order observes that petitioner should have exhausted all the provisions provided under Clause 19. 12 before seeking the assistance of a lawyer. To come to that conclusion the Labour Court analyses Clause 19. 12 of the Standing Orders. In my opinion, the standing Orders of the Bank requires to be construed only in this manner. The Enquiry Officer shall permit the workman to be defended in an enquiry proceedings by a representative of a trade union of bank employees if he is a member of a trade union on the first date notified in the enquiry. If for any reason, the workman is not a member of the trade union on the date notified for the enquiry, he can be defended by a representative of a trade union of employees of the bank in which he is employed. Clause I9. l2 (a) (iii) says at the request of the union by a representative of the State Federation or All India Organisation to which such Union is affiliated. It only means the workman may also request the registered trade union of the employees of the bank in which he is employed, if he does not get assistance under Clause 19. 12. (1) (y) to make arrangement to be defended by a representative of the State Federation or Ail India organisation to which such union is affiliated or with the Bank's permission by a lawyer. Clause 19. 12 of standing orders provides three modes for a workman to be defended in an enquiry proceedings. Firstly, by a representative of a registered trade union of the Bank employees in which if he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of enquiry and if he is not a member of any trade union of the bank employees, by a representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank in which he is employed and then comes two alternatives. The enquiry officer may permit the workman to be defended by a representative of the State federation or All India Organisation on a request made by a registered trade union of the employees of the bank in which workman is employed or he may permit the lawyer to defend the workman if the management of the bank grants such permission. The Labour Court appears to be under a mistaken notion that the workman without exhausting the remedy under Clause 19. 12 (a) (ii) cannot request for the assistance of legal practitioner to defend him in the inquiry proceedings. In my opinion, the workman is not tied down to such alternative. The workman can either ask the registered trade union of the employees of the bank in which he is employed to request the representative of the State Federation or All India organisation to which the union is affiliated to defend in an enquiry proceedings or in the alternative may approach the Bank to permit him to engage the services of a legal practitioner to defend him in the enquiry proceedings. The workman is at liberty to adopt either of two mutually exclusive steps or courts of action. if he adopts one, he should exhaust the same before he resorts to the other. Thus the available courses of action are not mutually exclusive. One or the other, though not simultaneously could be pursued by the workman. The workman may take recourse to Clause 19. 12. (a) (ii) and if he is not successful in that attempt may abandon that course and may request the management of the bank to permit him to take the assistance of a legal practitioner to defend him in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the reasoning of the learned presiding Judge of the Labour Court that merely because the workman did not exhaust the facility provided under Clause 19. 12 (a) (ii), he was not entitled to have the assistance of a legal practitioner to defend him in the enquiry proceedings. However, the second meaning assigned by the learned Judge deserves to be accepted. ( 8 ) THE next question that requires to be considered and decided is whether the petitioner has an absolute right to be defended by a lawyer in the enquiry proceedings. Clause 19. 12. However, the second meaning assigned by the learned Judge deserves to be accepted. ( 8 ) THE next question that requires to be considered and decided is whether the petitioner has an absolute right to be defended by a lawyer in the enquiry proceedings. Clause 19. 12. (a) (iii) of the standing Orders says that the workman can be defended in an enquiry proceedings by a lawyer only with the Bank's permission. In the instant case, petitioner had approached the Bank to provide him the assistance of a legal practitioner to defend him in the enquiry proceedings. That request is rejected by the Bank. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the action of the Bank is wholly arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Per contra, Sri prabhakar, learned Counsel for respondent-Bank submits that the workman has no inherent right or absolute right to be defended by a lawyer and he can utmost be defended by a lawyer only with the permission of the Bank. In support of that contention the learned counsel draws my attention to the recent ruling of the Supreme court in th case of M/s. CIPLA LTD vs RIPU DAMAN BHANOR. In the said decision the Supreme Court at para 11 was pleased to observe as under:"11. In Kalinidi and Others vs Tata Locomotive Engineering company Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 914 ; 1960 (3) SCR 407 , it was held that a workman against whom a departmental enquiry is held by the management had no right to be represented at such enquiry by an outsider, not even by a representative of his Union though the management may in its discretion allow the employee to avail of such assistance. So also in Dunlop Rubber Company vs workmen 1965 (2) SCR 139 : AIR 1965 SC 1392 : 1965 (1)LLJ 426, it was laid down that an employee has no right to be represented in the disciplinary proceedings by another person unless the service Rules specifically provided for the same. A three Judge bench of this Court in Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. vs ram Naresh Tripathi (1993) 2 SCC 115 : 1992 Supp (3) SCR 559, laid down that the right to be represented in the departmental proceeding initiated against a delinquent employee can be regulated or restricted by the management or by the Service rules. A three Judge bench of this Court in Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. vs ram Naresh Tripathi (1993) 2 SCC 115 : 1992 Supp (3) SCR 559, laid down that the right to be represented in the departmental proceeding initiated against a delinquent employee can be regulated or restricted by the management or by the Service rules. It was held that the right to be represented by an advocate in the department proceedings can be restricted and regulated by statutes or by the Service Rules including the Standing Orders, applicable to the employee concerned. The whole case law was reviewed by this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs maharashtra Genl. Kamgar Union and Others (1999) 1 SCC 626 and it was held that a delinquent employee has no right to be represented by an advocate in the departmental proceedings and that right to be represented by a co-workman is given him, the departmental proceedings would not be bad only for the reason that the assistance of an advocate was not provided to him. " ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court while considering whether the workman has a right to claim to be represented by an advocate in an enquiry proceedings, referring to earlier decisions in Kalindi and others vs tata Locomotive and Engineering Company Ltd. , Duniop Rubber company vs Workmen, Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. vs Naresh tripathi, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Maharashtra Genl. Kamgar, Union and Others, was pleased to observe that the employee has no right to be represented in the disciplinary proceedings by an advocate unless the service rules specifically provide for the same. ( 10 ) KEEPING in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in the afore said decision, in my opinion, a look at the standing orders of the Bank would clearly indicate that the employee's right to be defended by an advocate is hedged with a condition i. e. with the permission of the Bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that the workman has an absolute right to be defended by an advocate in an enquiry proceedings. In my opinion, rightly the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that merely because petitioner was not permitted to be defended by an advocate in the enquiry proceedings, it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice. In my opinion, rightly the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that merely because petitioner was not permitted to be defended by an advocate in the enquiry proceedings, it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice. In that view of the matter, the first contention canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted. Accordingly, it is rejected. ( 11 ) IN these proceedings it is not the case of the petitioner or his learned Counsel that the respondent-Bank has rejected the request made by him on untenable grounds. ( 12 ) SECONDLY, the learned Counsel for petitioner would contend that the Labour Court after coming to a conclusion that the domestic enquiry proceedings held against the workman is fair and proper should have exercised its power under Section 11a of the Act to hold that the proved misconduct does not merit the punishment of dismissal from service and should have awarded lesser punishment. Since that has not been done by the Labour Court, the impugned order requires to be set aside. It is difficult to accept this submission of the learned Counsel. ( 13 ) UNDER Section 11-A of the Act the Tribunal may hold that them is conduct is proved, nevertheless, it may be of the opinion that the order of dismissal of misconduct alleged it: not justified, it may award lesser punishment under such circumstances. In the instant case the Labour Court in its award observes as under: "in the case at hand, it has been established by the management that the workman is guilty of falsification of accounts and misappropriation of the funds of the bank. It has been further shown that his contention that he has acted at the behest of the accountant and Manager and has committed these acts for their benefit is far from truth. The II party is a banking institution and there can be no two opinions that highest degree of honesty and integrity is expected of its employees. Since it has been proved that the I party workman is guilty of the misconduct of falsification of accounts and misappropriation, I find that it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 11 A of the I. D. Act. In my view, the management was justified in dismissing him from service. Since it has been proved that the I party workman is guilty of the misconduct of falsification of accounts and misappropriation, I find that it is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 11 A of the I. D. Act. In my view, the management was justified in dismissing him from service. " ( 14 ) THE Labour Court has come to She conclusion that the only punishment that can be imposed in a case of this nature is the punishment of dismissal. For that purpose the labour Court observes that the II party is a banking institution and there can be no two opinions that highest degree of honesty ad integrity is expected of its employees. Since it has been proved that the I party workman is guilty of the misconduct of falsification of accounts and misappropriation, the only punishment that can be imposed is dismissal from service. The Labour Court also observes that this is not a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. I fully agree with the findings of the Labour Court on this aspect of the matter. Therefore, in my opinion, the same does not call for interference. 14. These are the only two contentions canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner. Since I have negatived both the contentions, the Writ Petition fails and deserves to be rejected. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons stated, petition is rejected. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .