K. M. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) BARODA Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.-petitioner has filed this petition for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the judgement and award dated 21. 10. 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara, in BIR T-Application No. 3 of 1995 produced at Annexure-E to this petition and the judgement and order dated 10. 8. 2001 passed by the Industrial Court, Vadodara in Appeal No. 4/2001. 2. 1 The facts giving rise to this petition are as under:-2. 1 The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank engaged in the banking business. The relations between the Bank and its employees are regulated by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The petitioner is having one branch office at Mukum-Post Bajwa where five employees were in employment to run the said branch. The respondent workman was one of the employees working as peon. 2. 2 It is the contention of the petitioner that it came to the notice of the petitioner Bank that irregularities have been committed by the employees of the said branch with dishonest intention and with a view to misappropriate the Banks money. The bank employee had committed misconduct by making false entries of debits and credits in the ledger as well as in the passbooks of the account holders and unauthorisedly withdrew amounts by creating and fabricating false records and committed financial irregularities with dishonest intention in connivance with other four employees. 2. 3 Mr. V. B. Patel, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioners, contended that the modus operandi of the respondent workman adopted was first to credit to the account holder namely one Vajesingh B. Gohil, account No. 1925, with a fake entry of Rs. 51,500. 00 without actually depositing the amount. Thereafter, the respondent has forged the signature in the subsequent card and also by forging signature withdraw the sum from that account holder. So in that way he has committed fraud with customer as well as with the banks. This happened with 3 to 4 account holders and about Rs. 1,50,000. 00 has been withdrawn from the accounts with the connivance of the other employees. 2. 4 The bank thereafter suspended the workman on 18. 8. 1994. The bank also issued chargesheet to the respondent workman on 22. 10. 1994. The respondent gave his reply on 25. 10. 1994. This happened with 3 to 4 account holders and about Rs. 1,50,000. 00 has been withdrawn from the accounts with the connivance of the other employees. 2. 4 The bank thereafter suspended the workman on 18. 8. 1994. The bank also issued chargesheet to the respondent workman on 22. 10. 1994. The respondent gave his reply on 25. 10. 1994. The bank thereafter came to the conclusion that the misconduct was proved in the departmental enquiry proceedings and thereafter the respondent workman was dismissed from service on 17. 2. 1995. 2. 5 The respondent sent approach letter under Section 42 (4) of the B. I. R. Act on 10. 3. 1993. The respondent filed T-Application No. 3/1995 under Sections 78 and 79 of the B. I. R. Act before the Labour Court, Vadodara on 31. 3. 1995. 2. 6 The Labour Court by its judgement and award dated 21. 10. 2000 allowed the T-Application and granted reinstatement with 50% backwages. 2. 7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner filed an appeal being Ref. (IC) No. 4/2001 before the Industrial Court, Baroda, on 7. 12. 2000. 2. 8 The Industrial Court, Baroda, by its judgement and order dated 10. 8. 2001 was pleased to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Labour Court dated 21. 10. 2000 and awarded cost of Rs. 7,500. 00. 2. 9 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed this petition before this court. ( 2 ) THE learned senior counsel has argued the matter at great length. He has invited my attention to both the judgement and the inquiry report in this behalf. He has submitted that the modus operandi employed by the concerned employee involved in the fraud was to make a fake/fictitious entry of deposit in the passbook of a particular account holder, though in fact, the account holder had not made any deposit and then at an opportune time to withdraw substantial amount out of the amount shown to have been deposited by spurious signature of the account holder on the withdrawal form/voucher. On the withdrawal slips/vouchers for withdrawing the amount, there appears signature which purports to be that of the particular account holder in whose account the fake entry of deposit was made. On the withdrawal slips/vouchers for withdrawing the amount, there appears signature which purports to be that of the particular account holder in whose account the fake entry of deposit was made. In the process, there is replacement of the card bearing specimen signature and keeping manipulated duplicate passbook for the purpose of carrying out the plan to defraud the bank. The account holders have denied that they have made the deposit and they have withdrawn the amount. They have also denied that the signature on the voucher to be their signature. The particulars of such accounts are as under:-