JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. Rule. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent by caveat waives notice of Rule. 2. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard. 3. The petitioner by this petition challenges the order passed by the Labour Court below interim application, whereby the petitioner Bank is directed to reinstate the respondent Workman at the original post and is further restrained from interfering him from discharging the duty and its confirmation thereof by the Industrial Court. 4. Heard Ms. Yogini Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. It appears that the service regulations upon which the reliance is placed by both the Courts does provide that the suspension shall not be in any circumstance continued exceeding the period of 6 months and it is not the case of the petitioner that such service regulation is not enforcible or is modified. Under these circumstances, both the Courts below were justified in holding that the workman concerned could not have been continued in suspension exceeding the period of 6 months and the Bank would be require to reinstate the workman. 6. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner under the instructions of her client contended that as the respondent did not cooperate, the inquiry could not be completed. She further declared before the Court under the instructions of her client that if the direction is given to the respondent to cooperate with the inquiry, then the inquiry would be completed within a period of 6-8 weeks and till then, the petitioner Bank instead of posting him at a different place in any branch of the Bank, shall pay the full salary to the respondent Workman. 7. Whereas, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank contended that the respondent has not delayed the proceedings of the inquiry. He submitted that if the respondent is to be paid full salary as per the interim order of the Labour Court, he has no objection and such position may be continued until final order is passed by the disciplinary authority after following the procedure in accordance with law. 8. It further appears that the Labour Court has committed error only to the extent that the reinstatement could have been ordered, but not at the same place. 8. It further appears that the Labour Court has committed error only to the extent that the reinstatement could have been ordered, but not at the same place. Further, the Labour Court could also have exercised the discretion for directing the respondent to revoke the suspension and to pay full salary. However, it appears that such aspect was not considered, may be on account of no declaration made at the relevant point of time before the Court below. In any case, if the respondent is to be paid full salary as if the suspension order is revoked irrespective of the fact that whether the work is taken from him by posting or not, no prejudice will be caused to such employee. But it is for the petitioner Bank to exercise the discretion and to decide as to whether the salary should be paid by taking work by his posting or the salary should be paid without posting of the respondent. In view of the aforesaid development, interim order passed by the Labour Court and its confirmation thereof by the Industrial Court deserves to be modified to that extent. 9. Hence, it is directed as under: (A) The petitioner Bank shall be at the liberty to conduct the inquiry against the respondent within a period of 8 weeks from today and the respondent shall cooperate before the inquiry officer as well as disciplinary authority in conclusion of the inquiry and the disciplinary proceedings within the aforesaid period. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority may pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law. (B) Until the final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority, the full salary of the respondent workman shall be paid to him from the date on which the Labour Court has passed the interim order dated 04.06.2009 till the final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority as per the earlier direction. It is also observed that it would be open to the petitioner to post the petitioner at any branch of Bhavnagar District Cooperative Bank and to pay salary. However, in case such option is not exercised, then also the full salary, as directed earlier shall be paid. (C) The interim order passed by the Labour Court and its confirmation thereof by the Industrial Court shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 10. Petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in case such option is not exercised, then also the full salary, as directed earlier shall be paid. (C) The interim order passed by the Labour Court and its confirmation thereof by the Industrial Court shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 10. Petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.