ORDER Aravind Kumar , J.—Syndicate Bank is assailing the order passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as Labour Court for sake of brevity), award passed in C.R. No. 33/2001 dated 14.2.2006 whereunder industrial dispute raised by workman was allowed and bank was directed to reinstate the employee with full back-wages from the date of dismissal till date of reinstatement less the amount already paid to him by way of interim relief with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. Heard Sri C.K. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the Impugned award as also records secured from the Tribunal. 2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition In brief are as under the parties are referred to as petitioner (management) and respondent (workman). Workman joined the services of bank as sub-staff In the year 1980 and while discharging his duties at Aversa Branch, Karwar, he Is said to have Issued a Diamond, Jubilee Cash Certificate dated 14 6.1994 with a face value of Rs. 2.000 and maturity value of Rs. 4,000 to one Sri Shiva Sukuru Gouda, without accounting the amount In the books of bank and by forging the signatures of bank officials. After maturity of certificate In the year 1999 said Sri Shiva Sukuru Gouda has approached the bank for payment said to be standing In his name. On matter being enquired by management with the workman, he is said to have confessed for having issued deposit cash certificate to said Sri Shiva Sukuru Gouda by accepting Rs. 2,000 and agreeing to deposit the said amount of Rs. 4,000 at Aversa Branch. On 27.12.1999 bank is said to have made payment and workman was kept under suspension on 28.12.1999. Articles of charges for misconduct was issued on 2.2.2000 and after considering the explanation submitted by workman on 11.2.2000, enquiry proceedings were held. Before enquiry officer delinquent workman accepted his guilt and sought for being excused and at the time of personal hearing he has admitted to have committed the mistake and assured the management that he will not commit such mistakes In future and agreed to accept any punishment other than dismissal from service. Before enquiry officer delinquent workman accepted his guilt and sought for being excused and at the time of personal hearing he has admitted to have committed the mistake and assured the management that he will not commit such mistakes In future and agreed to accept any punishment other than dismissal from service. Enquiry Officer held the charges were proved and submitted a report on 24.3.2000 and thereafter management Issued second show cause notice on 17.4.2000 pursuant to which the workman appeared before management on 24.4.2000 accepted his guilt and agreed for any punishment being imposed on him other than dismissal from service. Disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the reply given by workman, accepted the report of enquiry officer and dismissed the workman from service of bank on 29.4.2000. 3. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, workman preferred an appeal before appellate authority i.e., General Manager, Personnel Department who examined the issue afresh and concurred with the order of disciplinary authority and affirmed the punishment of dismissal by order dated 3.8.2000. Thereafter workman sought for reference of dispute to Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court and appropriate Government in exercise of its power conferred under Clause (d) of sub-section (2-A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act referred the dispute for adjudication vide order dated 27.4.2006. Before Industrial Tribunal, workman filed claim statement and on service of notice respondent-management appeared and filed its statement of objections. In order to substantiate the statement made In the claim statement, workman got himself examined as a witness and Ex-M-1 to M-7 were got marked. Respondent-management examined five witnesses as MW-1 to MW-5 and through these witnesses Ex-M-1 to Ex-M-25 were got marked. A preliminary issue was framed as to whether domestic enquiry conducted against the first party by second party was fair and proper and was answered in the negative by order dated 20.7.2004. Said order came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. 44740/2004 and writ petition came to be dismissed reserving liberty to management to challenge this order In the event of adverse award being passed. Said order came to be challenged before this Court in W.P. 44740/2004 and writ petition came to be dismissed reserving liberty to management to challenge this order In the event of adverse award being passed. Thereafter Tribunal analysed the pleadings and evaluated the evidence tendered (both oral and documentary) and held that charges levelled against the workman was not proved and accordingly interfered with the findings of disciplinary authority and ordered for reinstatement with full back-wages from the date of dismissal till date of reinstatement less the amount already paid to workman by way of interim relief and continuity of service with all other consequential benefits. The order dated 20.7.2004 holding domestic enquiry conducted as being fair and proper and final award dated 14.2.2006 are assailed by management-bank in this writ petition. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that finding of Tribunal that enquiry was conducted in one day and as such it amounts to denial of opportunity is contrary to documentary evidence-He contends that workman has admitted his guilt at all stages and even in reply submitted to the charge-sheet issued to him which is produced at Annexure-D and marked as Ex-M-3 before enquiry officer he has admitted his guilt and in fact he remitted the amount as agreed which clearly goes to show that guilt is admitted by him and as such question of not giving a fair opportunity as held by Tribunal did not arise and as such he contends that order of Labour Court holding domestic enquiry conducted was not fair and proper on the ground of lack of opportunity is contrary to records and law laid down in this regard. He would further contend that even in the appeal filed before appellate authority as per Annexure-K, workman has admitted of having committed such an act and as such appellate authority was also justified in affirming the order of disciplinary authority. Non-consideration of these vital aspects by Tribunal according to learned counsel for petitioner has resulted in erroneous order being passed. He would further contend that finding of Tribunal holding that there was violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that workman was not given assistance of advocate or co-employee is also incorrect since workman himself has not availed such opportunity inspite of same being made known to him in the language known to him. He would further contend that finding of Tribunal holding that there was violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that workman was not given assistance of advocate or co-employee is also incorrect since workman himself has not availed such opportunity inspite of same being made known to him in the language known to him. He would also contend that Tribunal committed an error in holding that nonpayment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension has vitiated the enquiry proceedings without considering the fact that in the order of suspension itself it was clearly indicated that workman would be entitled for subsistence allowance at the rate of 1/3rt of pay and allowance for first three months and Vi pay allowance till one year and full pay and allowance after one year and workman was also notified about dues to bank and other statutory deductions would be recovered/effected from the subsistence, allowance in the normal course and no representation was submitted for payment of subsistence allowance and after paying the same by crediting savings bank account It was adjusted towards dues and as such there is no violation of principles of natural justice, and as such finding of the Labour Court is erroneous on this Issue also. He would further elaborate his submission by contending that workman himself admitted his guilt and he did not chose to examine any witness on his behalf and only after charges are read over and explained In the language known to him (Kannada) he admitted his guilt and prayed for imposing of any punishment other than dismissal and as such enquiry officer recorded the evidence of management witness to bring on record documentary evidence whereunder, workman had admitted the guilt and merely because enquiry officer has received the evidence of management itself would not vitiate the enquiry on the ground that there is violation of principles of natural justice and no such situation arose since workman did not choose to examine witnesses inspite of such offer being given. On these grounds he submits that Labour Court grossly erred in setting aside the domestic enquiry conducted and holding that charges levelled against the workman as not proved. He has relied upon the following Judgments in support of his submission: (i) Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Karunamoy Banerjee, 1967 FLR (Vol. 32) P. 485. (ii) K. Venkateswarlu Vs. On these grounds he submits that Labour Court grossly erred in setting aside the domestic enquiry conducted and holding that charges levelled against the workman as not proved. He has relied upon the following Judgments in support of his submission: (i) Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Karunamoy Banerjee, 1967 FLR (Vol. 32) P. 485. (ii) K. Venkateswarlu Vs. Nagarjuna Grameena Bank and Anr., (1995) 2 LLJ 492 AP (iii) Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., 1997 (II) LLJ 131. (iv) Karnataka Bank Ltd. v. A.L. Mohan Rao, 2006 SCC (L&S) 59. (v) Agro Cargo Transport Ltd., Tuticorin v. E. Murugesan & Anr., 1995 (I) LLJ 544 (vi) Bank of India, Regional Office, Bangalore Vs. D. Padmanabhudu and Another, (1995) 1 LLJ 233 Kant . (vii) D. Padmanabhudu Vs. Bank of India and Another, (1995) 1 LLJ 1076 Kant . (viii) Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc. Vs. The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha Etc., AIR 2000 SC 3129 . (ix) Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs. Committee, Management of M.M. Degree College and Others, AIR 2004 SC 248 . (x) U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Others, AIR 2006 SC 87 . 5. Per contra, Sri Subramanya Bhat would support the orders passed by Labour Court and submits that in the first Instance Labour Court has held that enquiry conducted is not fair and proper since entire proceedings having been completed within one day and that itself would go to show that enquiry was conducted In a haste manner and all the witnesses were examined on behalf of management and enquiry was concluded on the same day without explaining the consequence thereof to the workman and thus Tribunal rightly held that Itself amounts violation of principles of natural justice and as such he contends that issue regarding domestic enquiry answered in the negative does not call for Interference. He also contends that Tribunal was fully justified In arriving at a conclusion that charges are not proved since the alleged confession statement said to have been made on 23.9.1999 was not in the presence of any of witnesses who are examined before the domestic enquiry and as such he contends that order of Labour Court in setting aside the domestic enquiry and ordering for reinstatement as per award does not call for interference. On these grounds he seeks for dismissal of writ petition. On these grounds he seeks for dismissal of writ petition. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of impugned order as also records secured from the Labour Court, I am of the view that following points arise for my consideration: (I) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that domestic enquiry conducted was not fair and proper by its order dated 20.7.2004? (ii) Whether the award passed on 14.2.2006 is to be affirmed, reversed or modified? (ii) What order ? RE: POINT No. 1: 7. One of the main ground on which the domestic enquiry conducted was held to be not fair and proper by the Industrial Tribunal was on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance during the pendency of enquiry proceedings for the period of suspension till conclusion of enquiry. Workman was kept under suspension by order dated 28.12.1999 which came to be marked as Ex.M-6 in the domestic enquiry. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that amount payable to the workman as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension was credited to savings bank account and later on appropriated towards dues to the bank. In other words it is stated that what has been given has been taken back. It Is also contended that in suspension order Ex-M-6 the fact of recovery of amount has been made known to workman and as such he was fully aware of it and he did not raise any objection whatsoever. It has been contended by Sri Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for workman that non-payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension being mandatory and non-compliance thereof vitiates the enquiry and in support of his submission he has relied on Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1416 . Learned counsel for management has relied upon following judgments: (I) Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs. Committee, Management of M.M. Degree College and Others, AIR 2004 SC 248 . (ii) U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Others, AIR 2006 SC 87 . (iii) Capt M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., 1999 SC 1416. 8. Learned counsel for management has relied upon following judgments: (I) Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs. Committee, Management of M.M. Degree College and Others, AIR 2004 SC 248 . (ii) U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Others, AIR 2006 SC 87 . (iii) Capt M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., 1999 SC 1416. 8. Judgment relied upon by learned counsel for workman has been considered by Labour Court and it has been held that non-payment of subsistence allowance had disabled the workman to take assistance of any co-worker much less lawyer by undertaking a journey of long distance from his home town Thankanikeri to Udupi thereby amounting denial of reasonable opportunity. It is not in dispute that workman at the undisputed point of time when the incident in question took place was working as a sub-staff in petitioner Bank and he did not possess worldly knowledge nor he knew the procedural aspect of a domestic enquiry and legal implications thereof. In the instant case on one hand subsistence allowance was credited to savings bank account of workman by petitioner Bank and at the same time it has been adjusted towards alleged dues. Honourable Supreme Court in, the case of Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 1183 has held as under: 5. With respect, we find it difficult to share the view taken by the High Court. Paragraph 5 of the writ petition expressly alleges that on December 5, 1964, the appellant sent a letter to the Enquiry Officer informing him that unless he was paid subsistence allowance he would not be able to face the enquiry proceedings. The letter was filed along with the petition. It is Annexure-H. The letter stated that "Until and unless I am paid subsistence allowance.... I categorically refuse to face any proceeding... as I have no capacity to do so because of acute shortage of funds", (emphasis added). This is obviously specific pleading on the point that for nonpayment of subsistence allowance he was short of funds and could not attend the enquiry. It is true that his affidavit does not give any particulars about his sources of income and the estimate of expenses to be incurred in the enquiry. But it would prima facie suggest that he had no other sources of income except his pay. It is true that his affidavit does not give any particulars about his sources of income and the estimate of expenses to be incurred in the enquiry. But it would prima facie suggest that he had no other sources of income except his pay. If he had no other sources of income, he could not invent them for the purpose of mentioning them in the affidavit. More significantly, the Government affidavit does not allege that he had any other source of income except pay. The fact that he had been drawing a monthly pay of Rs. 300 till October 1964 would not necessarily show that he had sufficient money to enable him to go to Jagdalpur to attend the enquiry in February, 1965. He was suspended on October 30, 1964 and thereafter he did not get subsistence allowance until March 20, 1965. Having regard to the prevailing high prices, it is not possible to draw any adverse inference against him from the mere circumstance that he had been receiving a monthly pay of Rs. 300 till October 1964. The fact that he filed a writ petition immediately on the passing of the order of dismissal and thereafter came in appeal to this Court, would not establish that he had enough resources to enable him to attend the enquiry. It seems to us that on the whole the High Court has gone by conjectures and surmises. There is nothing on the record to show that he has any other source of income except pay. As he did not receive subsistence allowance till March 20, 1965 he could not, in our opinion, attend the enquiry. The first payment of subsistence allowance was made to him on March 20, 1965 after a part of the evidence had already been recorded on February 9, 10 and 11, 1965. The enquiry proceedings during those days are vitiated accordingly. The report of the Enquiry Officer based on that evidence is infected with' the same defect. Accordingly, the order of the Government dismissing him from service cannot stand. It was passed in violation of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution for the appellant did not receive a reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the enquiry proceedings. The report of the Enquiry Officer based on that evidence is infected with' the same defect. Accordingly, the order of the Government dismissing him from service cannot stand. It was passed in violation of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution for the appellant did not receive a reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the enquiry proceedings. Following the said judgment yet again Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Capt M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416 has held as under: 33. Since in the instant case the appellant was not provided any Subsistence Allowance during the period of suspension and the adjournment prayed for by him on account of his illness, duly supported by medical certificates, was refused resulting in ex-parte proceedings against him, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been punished in total violation of the principles of natural justice and he was literally not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Moreover, as pleaded by the appellant before the High Court as also before us that on account of his penury occasioned by non-payment of Subsistence Allowance, he could not undertake a journey to attend the disciplinary proceedings, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer at such proceedings, which were held ex parte stand vitiated. 9. In both these judgments. Honourable Apex Court on examination of facts found that there was specific plea by workman seeking for payment of subsistence allowance and same was not paid to him and as such they could not undertake journey to attend the domestic enquiry and as such it was vitiated. 10. In Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs. Committee, Management of M.M. Degree College and Others, AIR 2004 SC 248 at paragraph 8, Honourable Supreme Court has held that merely on the score that workman was not paid subsistence allowance it would not vitiate the enquiry unless prejudice is shown and established and ipso facto that would not be a ground Jo hold that enquiry is vitiated. In U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Others, AIR 2006 SC 87 ft was held that at no point of time,. In U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Others, AIR 2006 SC 87 ft was held that at no point of time,. workman raised the issue regarding non-payment of subsistence allowance and as such no grievance having been made out it cannot be contended that non-payment of subsistence allowance ipso facto to be a ground to hold the proceedings are vitiated in every case. It has been held that until and unless it is pleaded, contended and proved no- protection can be taken by a workman that enquiry proceedings are vitiated on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance. A perusal of the pleadings would go to show that such a plea has not been raised even on perusal of appeal memorandum which is at Annexure-K to the writ petition also it does not reflect that such a plea had been raised. However, it is noticed that in the claim statement filed by workman before Tribunal a specific plea has been raised at paragraph 5 on the issue of non-payment of subsistence allowance. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact as observed hereinabove already that workman in the instant case being a sub-staff with scanty educational qualification and not being aware of the procedural aspects and left with no other option has proceeded to appear before enquiry officer and admitted his guilt and admittedly the enquiry proceedings has been concluded within a day's time. As held by Honourable Apex Court in Paul Anthony's case nonpayment of subsistence allowance during suspension period is violative of fundamental right, I am of the considered view that Tribunal has rightly considered this aspect to arrive at a conclusion that domestic enquiry was vitiated on account of nonpayment of subsistence allowance. Hence same is affirmed. 11. One another ground on which the enquiry was held to be vitiated was on account of denial of fair and reasonable opportunity to first party to defend his case. It is seen from records that management could have proceeded to accept the reply given to the charge-sheet and suitable orders could have been passed thereon. It did not choose to do so. It ventured to proceed to hold domestic enquiry, examined the witness and wanted a finding to be given by enquiry officer to hold that the charges levelled against the workman as proved so as to defend its action at later stages. It did not choose to do so. It ventured to proceed to hold domestic enquiry, examined the witness and wanted a finding to be given by enquiry officer to hold that the charges levelled against the workman as proved so as to defend its action at later stages. Tribunal went on to hold that there is lack of opportunity extended to the workman and found that in the absence of list of witnesses, documents being supplied on the very first day of hearing and proceeding which the enquiry on the same day without even allowing the workman to peruse those documents would go to show that enquiry was conducted in a haste manner. As observed hereinabove if workman had accepted his guilt his reply to charge-sheet there was no necessity for conducting a domestic enquiry at all. However, after forming an opinion to conduct a domestic enquiry it was incumbent upon management to extend fair and reasonable opportunity. Immediately after furnishing the copies of list of witnesses and documents relied upon by it, management has examined its witnesses and called upon the workman to cross-examine those witnesses. Hence, in this background it cannot be held that opportunity is said to have been given to workman to be termed as "reasonable opportunity". I am of the considered view that empty formality extended cannot be construed as having satisfied the principles of natural justice having been followed in its true spirit. Principles of natural justice commands that reasonable opportunity is to be understood in its objective sense namely to ensure that person against whom the enquiry is being proceeded is given fair opportunity to defend and not making a show of having given an opportunity and thereafter contend it has passed the test of having afforded reasonable opportunity. As noted hereinabove management was represented by its representative through a presenting officer, who was well-versed with enquiry proceedings and the workman was not even assisted by a co-employee much less an Advocate and as such Tribunal was fully justified in coming to a conclusion that enquiry that was conducted is not In consonance with principles of natural justice and It was a farce enquiry and as such I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Labour Court In holding issue regarding domestic enquiry In the negative. Hence, Point No. 1 is answered In the affirmative, RE: POINT No. 2: 12. Hence, Point No. 1 is answered In the affirmative, RE: POINT No. 2: 12. Tribunal having come to a conclusion that domestic enquiry conducted was not fair and proper has extended opportunity to management to tender its evidence to prove charges of misconduct alleged against the workman. Management has examined three witnesses to substantiate its claim and has got marked Ex.M-10 to M-25. Oral evidence tendered by these witnesses has been analysed with reference to documentary evidence tendered. Charge levelled against the workman was three fold namely: (i) while working at Aversa Branch on 14.6.1994 he issued certificate for Rs. 3,000 in favour of Sri Shiva Sukuru Gouda; (ii) without accounting the same in the books of the branch; (iii) and he has forged the signatures of bank officials and admitted the guilt and deposited Rs. 4,000 at the said branch itself (since paid by the bank to the said depositor). Evidence tendered by management MW-3 to MW-5 as observed by Tribunal is hearsay evidence. It is not in dispute that witnesses MW-3 was working at Aversa Branch during the year 1994 on which date the alleged certificate Ex-M-10 is said to have been issued by workman to Sri Shivakumar by receiving Rs. 2,000 MW-3 has stated that he along with Manager observed handwriting found on the said certificate which resembled handwriting of workman who also worked earlier in Aversa Branch as Attender during 1994. Said witness has stated that Branch Manager after verifying the certificate with that of the handwriting of workman informed the Regional Manager, Karwar by communication dated 20.1.2000. Branch Manager, Sri T.K. Ganesh Rao has not been examined before Tribunal to corroborate the statement of MW-3. MW-3, Sri N.R. Bhat did not work during the year 1994 at Aversa Branch nor the workman worked under MW-3 at relevant point of time i.e., 1994. In fact there is admission in the cross-examination of MW-3 that he was not 'working at the above said branch as on the date of alleged incident and workman never worked under him. He is not the witness who have seen the workman writing Ex-M-10 he has not seen the workman forging signatures of bank officials. MW-4 Sri H.S. Mallya who is said to have conducted investigation has also admitted in his evidence he has not recorded the statement of any witnesses. He is not the witness who have seen the workman writing Ex-M-10 he has not seen the workman forging signatures of bank officials. MW-4 Sri H.S. Mallya who is said to have conducted investigation has also admitted in his evidence he has not recorded the statement of any witnesses. He has also admitted that he has not affixed his signature to documents perused by him for having examined and scrutinized them during his investigation. It has also come in evidence that he has admitted that he has drawn the proceedings of investigation but said proceedings did not see the light of the day before tribunal. Evidence of MW-5, Sri K.S. Surya Prakash whose evidence has been rightly discarded by Tribunal since said witness in the cross-examination has admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the facts and his evidence is based only on records. 13. It has been contended before the Labour Court as well as before this Court by Management that when there is a confession made by workman it would suffice to hold that alleged misconduct as proved. A perusal of the said confession statement which came to be marked as M-16 would go to show that it is written in Kannada language and it contains signatures of Sri T.K. Ganesh Rao, Manager, Aversa Branch, Smt. Veena D. Prabhu, M. Assistant and Sri N.R. Bhat, Assistant Manager along with the signature of workman. The best witness the management could have tendered was that of the Branch Manager, Sri T.K. Ganesh Rao who was working in the said Aversa Branch at the time of incident, said to have been occurred to prove the contents of Ex-M-16. When a specific plea has been put forward in the claim statement as also in the evidence of the workman that said document was written at the behest and instance of Sri Ganesh Rao, Branch Manager, and said confession statement was recorded under pressure and coercion, he would have been the best person to tender evidence to deny this fact. For reasons best known he has not been examined as a witness either in the domestic enquiry or before Labour Court. Plea raised and evidence tendered by workman before Industrial Tribunal was all the officers made him to admit the issuance of deposit certificate and receipt of Rs. For reasons best known he has not been examined as a witness either in the domestic enquiry or before Labour Court. Plea raised and evidence tendered by workman before Industrial Tribunal was all the officers made him to admit the issuance of deposit certificate and receipt of Rs. 2,000 by using force, promise, threat and informing him that non-furnishing of such a statement, he would be handed over to police custody. Though such a plea has not been put forward by workman is reply to the articles of charges, nothing much can be attached to same since a plea has been raised by the workman at a later stage i.e., before Industrial Tribunal and management had opportunity to rebut the same However, said exercise was not undertaken by the management. 14. Be that as it may, fact remains that best available evidence with the management was not tendered namely Sri Ganesh Rao, Branch Manager, Aversa Branch was not examined. Another witness namely Smt Veena D. who is also signatory to Ex-M-16 was also not examined. Thus, a cloud is created over the mode and manner in which Ex-M-16 i.e., confession statement came into existence. The Tribunal has analysed the entire evidence tendered by management in its award particularly at paragraph 11 and has come to a conclusion that charge levelled against the workman for alleged misconduct was not proved. It is no doubt true preponderance of probabilities is sufficient to hold in domestic enquiry that charges are proved. Evidence on hand as analysed by Labour Court would go to show that even this was not proved by management before Labour Court. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Tribunal holding that management has not proved the charges levelled against workman. Hence Point No. 2 is answered in favour of respondent holding that award dated 14.2.2006 passed by Tribunal is to be affirmed. RE: POINT No. 3: 15. Learned counsel for respondent has filed a memo with a rider that he is prepared to give up back wages in the event of petitioner bank reinstating the respondent to the post he was holding at the time of dismissal. RE: POINT No. 3: 15. Learned counsel for respondent has filed a memo with a rider that he is prepared to give up back wages in the event of petitioner bank reinstating the respondent to the post he was holding at the time of dismissal. Coming to the Issue regarding grant of full back wages from the date of dismissal till date of reinstatement it is to be noticed that consistent stand of the management has been that workman has at all times admitted his guilt and order of Labour Court directing reinstatement with full back wages for the period for which the workman has not worked would not be justifiable, merits acceptance. Admittedly workman from the date of dismissal from service on 29.4.2000 till date has not been working and as such order of Labour Court awarding back wages for the period for which he has not worked cannot be sustained since principle of 'no work, no pay' is applicable in the peculiar facts of the case. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the workman is denied the benefit of back' wages for the period relating for the period from date of dismissal till date of reinstatement excluding the amounts paid during the pendency of proceedings before Labour Court, Enquiry Officer as well as this Court 16. In the result following order is passed: ORDER Writ petition is allowed in part. Award dated 20.7.2004 passed in C R No. 33/2001 to the extent of ordering reinstatement of respondent with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits thereof is affirmed. However, workman will not be entitled for back-wages as ordered by Tribunal and petitioner shall not recover the amounts paid to respondent by way of interim relief. Ordered accordingly. No costs.