Judgment :- The petitioner Management seeks for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent/ Central Government Industrial Tribunal in I.A.No.77 of 2004 dated 14.7.2004 in I.D.No.74 of 2000 and to quash the same. 2. According to the petitioner, in 1998, the second respondent was working as a Cashier in the Adambakkam Extension Counter of the petitioner-Bank. On 11.11.1998, a charge sheet was issued to the second respondent alleging misconduct of misappropriation of money belonging to a customer, which act was prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. On 28.11.1998, the second respondent is alleged to have given a reply, admitting his guilt and pleading for leniency on the ground that he had a family of aged parents, wife and two female children to support. He was inflicted with a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments. Subsequently, he was transferred to Anna Nagar Branch. 3. Even thereafter, the petitioner was alleged to have indulged in a misconduct and on 8.3.1999, a charge memo was issued to the second respondent, charging with a misconduct under Clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966, alleging that he had retained cash belonging to the customers with a dishonest intention. On 19.3.1999, the petitioner, however, replied stating that he had not retained the cash with any dishonest intention. He was asked to appear for an enquiry and according to the petitioner, the second respondent had admitted that he had initially made a false statement that he had not received any excess cash from one Prakash. It is further stated that even when he admitted the receipt of cash amount of Rs.88,850/-, he made a false statement that the excess amount was kept in the cash cabin, when as a matter of fact, he had carried the said excess amount to his home and that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.88,850/-. The Management contends that the second respondent had admitted the misconduct and that, based on his own admission, the enquiry officer gave his report on 16.4.1999, holding that the charges were proved. The second respondent was asked to appear for a personal hearing on 4.5.1999 and before the disciplinary authority, he only pleaded for leniency. The Management contends that the second respondent had admitted the misconduct and that, based on his own admission, the enquiry officer gave his report on 16.4.1999, holding that the charges were proved. The second respondent was asked to appear for a personal hearing on 4.5.1999 and before the disciplinary authority, he only pleaded for leniency. After considering his representation, orders were passed on 17.5.1999, discharging the second respondent from service and while awarding the said punishment, the punishing authority had taken into account the earlier punishment awarded to the second respondent in December, 1998. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent has raised an industrial dispute, challenging his discharge from service, and for the first time, before the Conciliation Officer, the second respondent took the stand that he was compelled to accept the charges by the enquiry officer with an assurance of a minor punishment. 5. It is further stated that after I.D.No.74 of 2000 was taken up for hearing, on behalf of the Management Exs.M1 to M20 were marked by consent and M.W.1, Law Officer, was examined. The second respondent examined himself as a witness and no documents were marked on his behalf. The Tribunal heard the parties on the preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was held in a fair and proper manner. 6. It is further contended by the Management that the employee had raised the following two points for consideration namely (i) that he was compelled by the Enquiry Officer to accept the charges and (ii) the disciplinary authority, while awarding the punishment, had taken into consideration, his past record of service without putting him on notice and without asking for his comments and the same had resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. According to the Management, the contention of the second respondent that he was compelled to accept the charges was not true and that it was an allegation made as an after-thought and that the past record of the second respondent was taken into consideration only to find out whether there was any extenuating circumstances in favour of the petitioner, as the present misconduct of dishonesty itself was serious enough for awarding a punishment of termination of service. 7. 7. The Tribunal, by order dated 28.5.2001, held that the version of the second respondent that he was compelled by the enquiry officer to admit the charges was not true and could not be accepted and it was further held that the enquiry conducted by the Management was fair and proper. However, the Tribunal held that the failure on the part of the Management to give opportunity to the employee for his comments on the past record of service amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. After holding so, the first respondent gave an opportunity to the Management to lead evidence on the merits of the charges. 8. The said order was questioned by the Management in W.P.No.12913 of 2001. The Management contended that the petitioner had contended that in view of the findings of the Tribunal, the scope of evidence to be let in would be only on the question of his right to comment about past record of service and therefore, the Tribunal was in error in directing the Management to lead evidence on the merits of the case. Though the said writ petition was dismissed on 26.3.2004, this Court observed that the petitioner/ Management was at liberty to move the Tribunal seeking for clarification as to the scope of the opportunity to be provided to the second respondent to comment on his past record either for the purpose of imposing punishment or to prove the charges relating to the misconduct. After the proceedings were remanded to the Tribunal, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.77 of 2004 with a prayer to clarify that the order of the first respondent dated 28.5.2001 did not envisage that the Management should lead evidence on the merits of the charges and that the said order was only to provide an opportunity to the second respondent to make his submissions on the past record of service. The said application was opposed by the second respondent by filing a counter affidavit. 9. The first respondent, by the impugned order dated 14.7.2004, clarified that the petitioner should lead evidence on the merits of the charges levelled against the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the Management has come forward with the above writ petition. 10. The said application was opposed by the second respondent by filing a counter affidavit. 9. The first respondent, by the impugned order dated 14.7.2004, clarified that the petitioner should lead evidence on the merits of the charges levelled against the second respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the Management has come forward with the above writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the Management contended that though generally a writ petition will not be entertained challenging an interlocutory order of the Tribunal/Labour Court, in the present case, the Management was required to file the above writ petition as the impugned order was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in ((1993) 3 SCC 727). Even in a case where the enquiry report was not furnished or where second show cause notice proposing the punishment was not issued to a workman, the procedure to be adopted was only to give an opportunity to the workman to comment against the proposed penalty. Therefore, the issue of an absence of notice to the workman regarding past record of service before inflicting punishment of dismissal cannot be treated differently by holding that on the said ground alone even the domestic enquiry would be vitiated. Therefore, the scope of enquiry was only to provide opportunity to the workman to give his comments on the past record and nothing more. 11. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the attempt on the part of the Tribunal to reopen the entire merits of the case was not at all warranted in view of its own earlier findings that the enquiry has been conducted in a fair and proper manner. 12. On the contrary, learned counsel for the second respondent, however, contends that this Court and the Supreme Court have repeatedly held that non-compliance of proper opportunity on the issue of past record of service and for deciding the quantum of punishment as required under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act would vitiate the entire enquiry and therefore, the Tribunal was perfectly in order in holding that the Management should let in evidence on merits also. Learned counsel for the second respondent also relied on several decisions in support of his contention that this Court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in an interlocutory proceeding before the labour Court/Tribunal. 13. Learned counsel for the second respondent also relied on several decisions in support of his contention that this Court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in an interlocutory proceeding before the labour Court/Tribunal. 13. Before considering the legal submissions made by both sides, it is necessary to refer to the findings rendered by the Tribunal in its order dated 28.5.2001. 14. The Tribunal found that the contention of the employee that he was forced to accept the charges on promise of minor punishment was not at all justified. The Tribunal further held that from the available evidence, it was seen that the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer in a fair and proper manner. Having said so, the only defect which was found by the Tribunal was that there was violation of principles of natural justice in the matter of not permitting the employee to state his comments with regard to the past record of service which was relied upon by the Management. However, the Tribunal went on to hold that the Management should let in evidence to prove the charges and the alleged misconduct. 15. The aforesaid order led to the Management filing W.P.No.12913 of 2001 and by order dated 26.3.2004, P.D.Dinakaran,J., held as follows: "13. For the reasons aforesaid, even though I do not propose to interfere with the impugned interim award dated 28.5.2001 and dismiss this writ petition, I make it clear that the petitioner/Management is at liberty to move the first respondent / Tribunal seeking clarification as to the scope of the opportunity to be provided to the second respondent/ workman to comment upon his past record, either for the purpose of imposing punishment or to prove the charges relating to the alleged misconduct levelled against him, with a further direction to the first respondent/Tribunal to pass appropriate orders on such application for clarification and thereafter, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. " 16. A perusal of the order of the order of this Court as above would disclose that the proceedings were remitted to the Tribunal only for the purpose of seeking clarification as regards whether opportunity had to be provided to the second respondent to comment on his past record either for the purpose of imposing punishment or prove the charges. A perusal of the order of the order of this Court as above would disclose that the proceedings were remitted to the Tribunal only for the purpose of seeking clarification as regards whether opportunity had to be provided to the second respondent to comment on his past record either for the purpose of imposing punishment or prove the charges. Now, by virtue of the impugned order, the Tribunal has reiterated its earlier stand that the Management should let in evidence to prove the charge of alleged misconduct. 17. Though several judgments were relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent in support of his contention that this Court will not interfere in an interlocutory petition, I am unable to accept the said contention, considering that this writ petition arises out of an earlier order of remission by this Court in which a specific direction has been given, enabling the Management to file a petition for clarification. On the disposal of the petition for clarification, the petitioner has approached this Court. Therefore, strictly speaking, the order now passed consequent to the directions of this Court cannot be treated as an interlocutory order. Even otherwise, there is no bar for this Court to interfere, if it is found that the scope of the clarification issued by the Tribunal goes against its own findings and thereby serious prejudice is caused to one of the parties and it would be a futile exercise by the Tribunal if allowed to proceed further on an erroneous approach. 18. It is also true that the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments in support of his contention that if no opportunity is given to the employee to comment about his past record of service, it would amount to gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 19. In THE MANAGEMENT OF ESWARAN AND SONS ENGINEERS P. LTD. Vs. III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, MADRAS, a Division Bench of this Court held that the impugned order of punishment would be vitiated as no notice was given to the worker before taking into account the past record of service to the prejudice of the worker. 20. In THE MANAGEMENT OF MADRAS FERTILIZERS LTD. Vs. Vs. III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, MADRAS, a Division Bench of this Court held that the impugned order of punishment would be vitiated as no notice was given to the worker before taking into account the past record of service to the prejudice of the worker. 20. In THE MANAGEMENT OF MADRAS FERTILIZERS LTD. Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS ( 1990 (I) LLJ 298 ), a Division Bench of this Court held that the action of the Management taking into account the past record of service without giving an opportunity to have his say, would result in vitiating the order of punishment and that giving opportunity at a subsequent stage will not cure the defect. 21. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 22. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court that the issue of alleged violation of principles of natural justice should be considered in a practical manner and also by examining as to whether the alleged violation of principles of natural justice had resulted in any prejudice to the aggrieved party in the matter of domestic enquiries. It is also needless to mention that a disciplinary proceeding under labour and services really contain two stages, namely the stage of enquiry and the stage of infliction of punishment. While at the first stage the Tribunal is concerned with the fairness of the enquiry and the proof of the charges, at the second stage, the issue which arises for consideration is whether the aggrieved person is given proper opportunity or not, in deciding the quantum of punishment. 23. In the said background, from the following extract of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.5.2001, it is very clear that the Tribunal had come to a definite conclusion as regards the fairness of the enquiry and the proof of the charges. The Tribunal held that the charges have been proved and the enquiry had also been conducted in a fair and proper manner. The only basis on which the Tribunal directed the Management to lead evidence was in the context of non-furnishing of opportunity as regards the past record of service. The following is the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.5.2001: "10. The only basis on which the Tribunal directed the Management to lead evidence was in the context of non-furnishing of opportunity as regards the past record of service. The following is the relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.5.2001: "10. The learned counsel for the Management would argue that it is seen from the evidence given by both workman as WW1 and the Enquiry Officer as MW1 that the Enquiry Officer while conducting the enquiry against the charge sheeted employee has not forced him to admit the charges. From the evidence, both oral and documentary available in this case, it is seen that ample opportunity were given to the I Party/Workman as charge sheeted employee facing enquiry and it was fair and proper and he has not been denied any opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. The very fact that the delinquent employee had signed all the proceedings along with the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer go to show that he has admitted all the proceedings are fair and proper. Nowhere, he has stated that prior to the filing of petition raised as an industrial dispute for conciliation under section 2A that he has not been given sufficient opportunity and he was compelled by the Enquiry Officer to accept the charges. As it is seen from Ex.M1, the delinquent employee has been advised to submit his comments on the enquiry report within ten days of the receipt of the letter. So nothing prevented this delinquent employee by making a submission before the Disciplinary Authority as a reply to the Ex.M7 that he has not been given sufficient opportunity or he was compelled by the Enquiry Officer to admit the charges, so that he can be leniently dealt with by the Management. Ex.M8 is the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority, wherein he has clearly stated that when the delinquent employee appeared for personal hearing before him on 4.5.99, he pleaded that he would not repeat such mistakes and he should be allowed to continue in service and he has also represented that wherever he worked he was effective and did not create problems and he committed a mistake in November, 1998 at Adambakkam branch in cash department and immediately within four months at Annanagar branch and he would not repeat such mistakes. If really he was compelled to admit the charges by the Enquiry Officer on persuasion that if he admits the charges, he would be dealt with leniently, he would not have mentioned so. It is also the admission of the delinquent employee that the Enquiry Officer is not at all enemical towards him. Only at the time of raising the industrial dispute before the conciliating authority, after a lapse of long time, the Petitioner has chosen to come forward with a stand that the enquiry is vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice. So, from the available evidence, it is seen that the enquiry as such conducted by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner, charge sheeted employee, is fair and proper, as it is decided by the Madras High Court in the case reported as 1991 II MJR 485 cited above. Before ever the past record of the employee has been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority for imposing extreme penalty, he was not allowed to give his comments with regard to his past record. It amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, in the Counter itself, the Respondent/Management has clearly averred that while making a reference to the past conduct, it is not necessary that the charge sheeted employee would be given an opportunity to make his submission on the past records and it is only a unilateral consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. So, on the basis of the decision of the Madras High Court, as per the above cited case, it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. So, under such circumstances, it is held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the II Party/Management against the Workman/I Party is not in gross violation of principles of natural justice, so far as the Enquiry Officer's proceedings and the submission of enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority is concerned. Since the Disciplinary Authority has not afforded an opportunity to the delinquent employee to comment upon his past record and has taken a unilateral consideration for imposing major penalty of discharge from service, that act alone amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, I answer the preliminary issue accordingly. 11. Since the Disciplinary Authority has not afforded an opportunity to the delinquent employee to comment upon his past record and has taken a unilateral consideration for imposing major penalty of discharge from service, that act alone amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, I answer the preliminary issue accordingly. 11. So, as requested by the Management in the Counter itself that if the enquiry is held to be vitiated, the Respondent may be given an opportunity to lead evidence on the merits of the charges, an opportunity is to be given for the Respondent to let in evidence to prove the charge of alleged misconduct of the Petitioner in a detailed enquiry. Hence, the case is adjourned to 07.06.2001. Both the parties are at liberty to let in evidence in support of their respective pleadings. " 24. A perusal of the above observations discloses that the Tribunal was fully satisfied with the proof of the charges based on the very admissions of the employee and that the only defect was with reference to no opportunity having been provided to deal the past record of service. 25. It has been repeatedly held by this Court and the Supreme Court that the issue of past record of service is relevant only for deciding the quantum of punishment and by no stretch of imagination can it be an issue touching on the proof or merits of the charges. That being so, the Tribunal was in clear error in directing the Management to lead evidence on the charges or the misconduct of the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.7.2004 also discloses that the Tribunal has once again committed the same error. Lack of opportunity to deal with the past record of service cannot be confused with the basic violations of principles of natural justice in the matter of proof of the charges. It would be paradoxical to hold that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and yet there was violation of principles of natural justice resulting in vitiating the entire enquiry and that the Management should undergo the exercise of proving the charges once again. 26. It would be paradoxical to hold that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and yet there was violation of principles of natural justice resulting in vitiating the entire enquiry and that the Management should undergo the exercise of proving the charges once again. 26. It is also settled proposition that when once the proved misconduct itself was sufficient to warrant dismissal of the employee from service, there was no obligation on the part of the Management to refer to the past record of service. If that be so, it would be unsustainable to hold that the mere non-furnishing of the opportunity to deal with the past record of service alone should result in vitiating the entire enquiry. It is true that in awarding punishment, the Management ought not to have relied on the past record of service without providing opportunity to the employee. The defect could be attributed only to that extent and cannot result in holding that the entire proceedings would be vitiated. Proceedings before any forum, judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative, cannot be divested of a reasonable and practical approach. In the context of the issue arising for consideration in this writ petition, it is relevant to bear in mind that in terms of the findings of the Tribunal itself, the defect, if at all, pertained only to the non-furnishing of opportunity to the employee to deal with the past record of service. Hence, there was no question of requiring the Management to adduce evidence once again on the merits of the charges. 27. With the result, I am unable to sustain the clarificatory order issued by the Tribunal and the same is liable to be set aside. With the result, the proceedings are remanded back to the Tribunal only for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the Management as well as to the second respondent only in the context of the past record of service and as to how far the past record of service as well as the nature of the proved charges would justify the order of discharge passed by the management as against the second respondent. The writ petition is ordered subject to the above observation. No costs. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered subject to the above observation. No costs. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. W.P.M.P.No.35404 of 2004 and W.V.M.P.No.2005 of 2004 are closed.