Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the records relating to the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 5.10.2004, made in I.D.No.13 of 1999, and to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner, with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had joined the second respondent Cooperative Bank in the month of June, 1975, as a Senior Assistant. Since then he has been discharging his duties efficiently, without any blemish. However, since the petitioner has been raising certain issues, with regard to the unfair practices being followed by the management of the second respondent Bank, in giving promotion to the petitioner, he has been victimized. The second respondent Bank had issued a charge memo, dated 6.3.1993, alleging that the petitioner had acted against the regulations relating to the service conditions of the employees and that he had made false reports to higher authorities against the management of the second respondent Bank. Such acts of the petitioner amounted to `indiscipline’, as per Regulation Nos.6, 14 and 16. 3. The second respondent Bank had been aggrieved by the representation, dated 7.2.1992, made by the petitioner to the Chief Minister’s Grievance Cell, pointing out the irregularities in the functioning of the second respondent Bank. As the petitioner was awaiting the outcome of the enquiry, based on the communication sent from the Chief Minister’s Grievance Cell, the petitioner did not submit any explanation to the charge memo, dated 6.3.1993. The respondent had initiated a domestic enquiry, based on the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner had sent a number of letters requesting the enquiry officer and the management of the second respondent Bank to furnish to the petitioner, the copies of the documents relied upon by the second respondent Bank, to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner. However, the copies of the documents were not furnished to the petitioner. Further, the request made by the petitioner for engaging a legally trained person, to defend him during the domestic enquiry, had not been accepted. The enquiry officer had posted the enquiry, on 30.6.1995. In spite of the request made by the petitioner to postpone the enquiry due to his illness, the enquiry officer had not done so. Further, the request made by the petitioner for engaging a legally trained person, to defend him during the domestic enquiry, had not been accepted. The enquiry officer had posted the enquiry, on 30.6.1995. In spite of the request made by the petitioner to postpone the enquiry due to his illness, the enquiry officer had not done so. On 30.6.1995, the enquiry officer had proceeded with the enquiry, in a biased manner and had held that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, the petitioner had been removed from service, by the second respondent Bank, on 3.5.1996. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.13 of 1999. The petitioner had raised a preliminary issue challenging the domestic enquiry on the ground that it was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, the first respondent Labour Court, without considering the materials on record, had held, by its order, dated 19.12.2003, that the domestic enquiry had been conducted fairly and properly. Thereafter, the first respondent Labour Court had proceeded with the enquiry. 5. The petitioner had submitted that he had never intended to malign the image of the second respondent Bank. The action of the petitioner, in bringing to light certain irregularities committed by the management of the second respondent Bank cannot amount to indiscipline, as per regulation Nos.6, 14 and 16. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly disproportionate. The first respondent Labour Court, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner had passed the award, dated 5.10.2004, in I.D.No.13 of 1999, confirming the order passed by the second respondent Bank, removing the petitioner from service. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent Bank it has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable, either in law, or on the facts of the case. It has been stated that the writ petition cannot be sustained since the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation, on 13.10.2005, as per the relevant statutory rules and the special bye-laws relating to the service conditions of the employees of the second respondent Bank. 7. It has been further stated that the petitioner, who was a Class IV employee had not been promoted as a Class III employee. 7. It has been further stated that the petitioner, who was a Class IV employee had not been promoted as a Class III employee. As such promotions were given purely, in accordance with the seniority panel drawn from time to time, based on merit. However, the petitioner had been making a number of complaints, alleging mala fide motives against the management of the second respondent Bank. Since, the action of the petitioner amounted to indiscipline, as per the service regulations, he was issued with the charge memo, dated 6.3.1993. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry had been ordered, with regard to the charges alleged against the petitioner. Since, the petitioner did not attend the enquiry, in spite of several notices having been issued to him, the enquiry had been conducted by the enquiry officer, exparte, and the charges levelled against the petitioner had been found to be proved. 8. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer the petitioner had been removed from service. Challenging the order of the second respondent Bank, dated 3.5.1996, the petitioner had raised a dispute before the first respondent Labour Court. He has also raised a preliminary issue, in I.A.No.175 of 2002. The first respondent Labour Court, by its order, dated 22.12.2003, had held that the domestic enquiry proceedings, conducted by the second respondent Bank, with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner, was fair and proper and it was in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had not challenged the said order of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 22.12.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the first respondent Labour Court. Based on the evidence available and after properly analyzing the issues arising for its consideration, the first respondent Labour Court had passed the award, dated 5.10.2004, rejecting the claims made by the petitioner, in I.D.No.13 of 1999. 9. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent Bank and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ petition, by setting aside the award of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 5.10.2004, made in I.D.No.13 of 1999. 10. 10. From the records available, it is clear that certain charges had been levelled against the petitioner by the second respondent Bank, by way of a charge memo, dated 6.3.1993. In spite of sufficient opportunity having been given to the petitioner he had not submitted his explanation to the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, an enquiry officer had been appointed to conduct an enquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner. In spite of several notices having been issued, the petitioner had not attended the enquiry. The enquiry officer had commenced the enquiry, on 18.9.1993, and he had concluded the same, on 18.8.1995, after holding 17 sittings. The enquiry officer had found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer the second respondent Bank had removed the petitioner from service, by an order, dated 3.5.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent Labour Court, in I.D.No.13 of 1999. He had also raised a preliminary issue, with regard to the domestic enquiry, in I.A.No.175 of 2002. By an order, dated 22.12.2003, the first respondent Labour Court had held that the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper. Thereafter, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the first respondent Labour Court. However, he had not been in a position to establish that his removal from service, by the second respondent Bank, was improper and that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate in nature. Therefore, the first respondent Labour Court had dismissed the industrial dispute, in I.D.No.13 of 1999, by its award, dated 5.10.2004. Even though various grounds have been raised by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, he has not been in a position to show that the award of the Labour Court, dated 5.10.2004, is erroneous, contrary to law and liable to be set aside. 11. In spite of sufficient opportunity having been given the petitioner had not submitted his explanation to the charges leveled against him. Further, he had not participated in the domestic enquiry conducted by the second respondent management. After receiving the second show cause notice, issued by the second respondent Bank, on 1.12.1995, the petitioner had not submitted his explanation. Therefore, he had been removed from service by the second respondent Bank, by an order, dated 3.5.1996, based on the findings of the enquiry officer. After receiving the second show cause notice, issued by the second respondent Bank, on 1.12.1995, the petitioner had not submitted his explanation. Therefore, he had been removed from service by the second respondent Bank, by an order, dated 3.5.1996, based on the findings of the enquiry officer. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not raise an industrial dispute for nearly two and half years. Only on 21.12.1998, the petitioner had raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent Labour Court. After the first respondent Labour Court had passed an award, dated 5.10.2004, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition only in the month of December, 2005. Further, it has been stated that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation, on 13.10.2005. In such circumstances, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petition miscellaneous petition is closed.