JUDGMENT : Gangele, J.- The appellants have filed this appeal against the order dated 10/11/2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1096/2009 (S). (2) The respondent employee was appointed on 10th February, 1985 in clerical cadre in the State Bank of Indore. Subsequently, the aforesaid Bank was merged with the State Bank of India. During the period with effect from 02/12/2000 to 31/8/2004, he was posted as Computer Terminal Operator in the clerical cadre at Kampoo, Gwalior. During the aforesaid period, the Branch Manager, entrusted the respondent employee the duties of, documentation, recovery notice, preparation of statement of all advances, posting of log book and ledger and all other work. While discharging the aforesaid duties, the respondent employee committed various acts of omissions and committed fraud on the Bank by distributing fake bank loans. He was suspended vide suspension order dated 03/9/2004. The Bank Authority also lodged a FIR in regard to criminal action against the respondents at Police Station, Kampoo Gwalior. On the basis of report, an offence under Section 420 and 409 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondent employee. (3) The Bank also issued a chargesheet against the respondent employee vide memo dated 06th October, 2004. By the aforesaid chargesheet, it is alleged that the respondent had opened nine forged saving bank accounts and alloted individual loans to the account holders. Due to the aforesaid conduct of the respondent, a loss to the tune of Rs.8.20 lacks was caused to the Bank. Nearabout 10 charges were levelled against the respondent. It is not necessary to mention the details of the charges. It was also mentioned that earlier also for a misconduct, a punishment was imposed against the respondent. The respondent did not file reply and demanded certain copies of documents, thereafter, there was long correspondence between the respondent and Bank. The Bank vide order 11th January, 2005 informed the respondent that copies of required documents had already been supplied to the respondent and he can inspect the other documents. Then, a second chargesheet was issued to the respondent on 11th February, 2005. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and the respondent was also provided the benefit of defence assistance. The respondent requested that he be permitted to engage a counsel as defence assistance, that request was rejected. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry proceedings were completed on 22/2/2007. The Enquiry Officer was appointed and the respondent was also provided the benefit of defence assistance. The respondent requested that he be permitted to engage a counsel as defence assistance, that request was rejected. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry proceedings were completed on 22/2/2007. Before, the Enquiry Officer written statements were also filed. The Enquiry Officer found the charges Nos: 1 to 10 of chargesheet dated 06th October, 2004 and charges Nos. 1 to 6 of chargesheet dated 11th February, 2005 proved. Thereafter, a showcause notice was issued to the respondent on 07th November, 2007 along with the enquiry report. He was also given opportunity of personal hearing. He requested the time for personal hearing, that was accepted. The respondent appeared before the disciplinary authority on 29th November, 2011 and submitted oral documents. After considering the reply and enquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed the following punishment: "Be removed from service with superannuation benefit i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules of Regulation prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment." (4) Against the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred an appeal, that was dismissed. Then, he filed a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order and he remanded the matter back for enquiry from the stage of recording of statements of management witnesses. Learned Single Judge also observed that the period from the date of suspension upto the date of completion of further enquiry shall be treated under suspension and the respondent shall be entitled subsistence allowance in accordance with law. (5) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Bank has contended that the writ Court has committed an error of law in entertaining the writ petition, because an alternative efficacious remedy was available to the respondent under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. He further submitted that findings of the learned Single Judge that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent during the enquiry proceedings are perverse. The proper opportunity of hearing had been provided to the respondent and he had also availed the aforesaid opportunity, he also filed the written statement and considering all the aspects of the case, a proper order was passed and that could not be interfered with under writ jurisdiction. The proper opportunity of hearing had been provided to the respondent and he had also availed the aforesaid opportunity, he also filed the written statement and considering all the aspects of the case, a proper order was passed and that could not be interfered with under writ jurisdiction. Learned senior counsel has further contended that the Bank has to pay more than 10.00 lacks as subsistence allowance and further to pay other allowances, however, looking to the nature of misconduct, the respondent is not entitled for the aforesaid benefits. (6) Contrary to this, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the learned Single Judge has recorded detailed findings in regard to opportunity of hearing provided to the respondent during the departmental enquiry and from the aforesaid findings, it is clear that no proper opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the respondent during departmental enquiry. The respondent was an employee of a nationalized bank, hence, learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the departmental proceedings conducted by the Bank were in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and passed the proper order. (7) In the present case, number of points were raised by the learned counsel for the respondent - petitioner before the writ Court. Some points have been negativated by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has quashed the departmental enquiry on the ground that the in chief statements of management witnesses were recorded without putting them for cross-examination. All the in chief statements of management witnesses of nearabout 13 witnesses were recorded and they were put to cross-examination subsequently. This procedure is contrary to law. It has further been observed by the learned Single Judge that on 13/12/2006, the respondent was not available to participate in the domestic enquiry, because he had to attend a criminal case listed before the Court and on this ground, he left the enquiry proceedings and without considering the request of the respondent, the Enquiry Officer conducted the exparte enquiry and recorded the statements of hand-writing expert Mr. Rajiv Verma. Thereafter, the enquiry officer fixed the matter on the same day at 3.30 O'clock and recorded the statement of management witness No.8 Prahlad Das and thereafter the proceeding was fixed on the next date on 14/12/2006. The aforesaid date was not communicated to the respondent. Rajiv Verma. Thereafter, the enquiry officer fixed the matter on the same day at 3.30 O'clock and recorded the statement of management witness No.8 Prahlad Das and thereafter the proceeding was fixed on the next date on 14/12/2006. The aforesaid date was not communicated to the respondent. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer observed that the date be communicated to the respondent by telegram and further date was fixed. The case was closed on 22/2/2007, hence, the enquiry proceedings were illegal. On these grounds, the learned Single Judge has quashed the departmental enquiry proceedings and passed the order of denovo enquiry from the stage of examination of management witnesses. Learned Single Judge also ordered that the respondents shall be entitled for subsistence allowance from the date of his suspension upto the date of passing of a fresh final order in the disciplinary proceedings. (8) We would like to consider the aspect of principle of natural justice applicable to an industrial employee, because it is an admitted fact that the respondent had an alternative efficacious remedy to raise an industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is well settled principle of law that even if the departmental enquiry is found defective, the management is entitled to lead evidence before the Industrial Tribunal to substantiate the misconduct if the Industrial Tribunal ordered the domestic enquiry defective or illegal, in such eventuality, the employee is not entitled to receive suspension allowance. Contrary to this, the Industrial Tribunal grants opportunity to the management to prove the misconduct. This is the safeguard provided to the management to prove the misconduct under the industrial jurisprudence. In the aforesaid situation, the employee is not entitled to receive suspension allowance, however, in the present case, the learned Single Judge has held that the enquiry was defective due to noncompliance of the principle of natural justice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, hence, the employee is entitled the benefit of suspension allowance, in the event of quashment of departmental enquiry proceedings. (9) A settlement was arrived at between the Bank and Trade Union Leaders in regard to disciplinary proceeding against the employee, which is called as Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen. (9) A settlement was arrived at between the Bank and Trade Union Leaders in regard to disciplinary proceeding against the employee, which is called as Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen. Clause 12 of the aforesaid settlement prescribes procedure in regard to imposition of major punishment which is as under: "12 (1) An employee against whom disciplinary action is proposed or likely to be taken shall be given a charge-sheet clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and a date shall be fixed for enquiry, sufficient time being given to him to enable him to prepare and give his explanation as also to produce any evidence that he may wish to tender in his defence. He shall be permitted to appear before the Officer conducting the enquiry, to cross-examine any witness on whose evidence the charge rests and to examine witnesses and produce other evidence in his defence. He shall also be permitted to be defended (i) (x) by a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry. (y) where the employee is not a member of any trade union of bank employees on the aforesaid date, by a representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank in which he is employed. OR (ii) at the request of the said union by a representative of the state federation or all India organisation to which such union is affiliated. OR (iii) with the Bank's permission, by a lawyer. He shall also be given a hearing as regards the nature of the proposed punishment in case any charge is established against him." (10) From the aforesaid statutory settlement, it is clear that the employee is entitled to receive a charge-sheet and thereafter he shall be given time to file reply and he has to produce evidence that he may wish to tender in his defence, thereafter he shall be permitted to appear before the Enquiry Officer to cross-examine the witnesses and produce other evidence in his defence. In the light of the aforesaid settlement, we have to consider the fact that whether a proper opportunity was afforded to the respondent employee by the Bank during the enquiry proceedings or not; and the observance of principle of natural justice has to be considered in regards to industrial jurisprudence, because the concept of observance of principle of natural justice in industrial jurisprudence, fairplay is quite different available to a Government employee, because in that case, there are statutory rules in the shape of disciplinary rules and the employees have no remedy under the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. (11) The Enquiry Officer was appointed on 05/9/2005. The first date of the enquiry was held on 06/10/2005 and on 22/10/2005, the Presenting Officer requested the respondent employee to receive the documents. The respondent employee refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the case was listed on various dates i.e. on 09/11/2005,23/1/2006 and 16/1/2006 and 10/12/2006. The defence assistance was also appointed, who was an officer of the Bank to defend the respondent employee. On 22/10/2005, the Presenting Officer tried to serve the copies of the documents M1 to M 70, MIA to M31A and lists of all the witnesses on the respondent employee, but the employee refused to receive the documents. He further requested that he be given the copies of all the documents. On 23/11/2005, the employee respondent stated that he had submitted an application on 06/10/2005 for permission to engage a counsel, that was rejected, hence, he be given one month's time to find out the suitable defence representative, that was permitted. Then, the next date was fixed on 23/12/2005 and Mr. S.K. Singh, who was working in the office of Central Bank of India as Bank Lokpal, Bhopal was appointed as a defence representative. Thereafter, the enquiry proceedings were held on 16th January, 2006. Mr. Singh appeared in the aforesaid enquiry and the copies of all the documents and list of witnesses were supplied to him. The defence representative requested one month's time to go through the aforesaid evidence, that was granted. The enquiry was held on 10th February, 2006 and the next date was fixed as 07th March, 2006. On the aforesaid date, the employee requested that he would be permitted to lead evidence of hand writing expert to substantiate the genuineness of certain documents. The next meeting was held on 28th April, 2006. The enquiry was held on 10th February, 2006 and the next date was fixed as 07th March, 2006. On the aforesaid date, the employee requested that he would be permitted to lead evidence of hand writing expert to substantiate the genuineness of certain documents. The next meeting was held on 28th April, 2006. This is an important date, because on the aforesaid date, the management witnesses Mr. Suni Datt Gupta (MW/1) was present for examination and because on the aforesaid date the defence representative was not present, hence, the employee requested that he be given time, because he could not participate in the enquiry in absence of his defence representative. Then, the next date was fixed as 25th May, 2006. On the aforesaid date, Mr. S.K. Singh defence representative was present and he demanded copies of number of documents in order to effective cross-examination of the management witnesses. The Enquiry Officer rejected the aforesaid request and fixed the next date as 23rd June, 2006. On 23rd June, 2006 also the management witness Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1) was present and the Presenting Officer sought permission to start evidence of management witness, however, it was opposed by the respondent employee. The respondent employee stated that he had not been supplied the copies of the required documents and he further stated that if the enquiry be proceeded, then he would boycott the enquiry. Thereafter, the next date was fixed on 03/7/2006. It is mentioned by the Enquiry Officer that the proceedings were continued on day to day basis upto 05/7/2006. On 03/7/2006, the respondent employee was not present upto 1.00 O'clock and the proceeding was adjourned upto 3.00 O'clock and it begin on 3.00 O'clock. The respondent employee again objected and then the next date was fixed as 25/7/2006 and on that date, the Enquiry Officer permitted to record the evidence of Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1) in spite of objection from the respondent employee. The examination was continued and it was not completed, hence, the next date was fixed as 17/8/2006, on the aforesaid date also, the respondent employee was present, thereafter, the case was fixed on 18/9/2006. On the aforesaid date, the respondent employee informed that he had to attend the proceedings of a writ petition No.27/2001, which was fixed before the High Court for hearing. On the aforesaid date, the respondent employee informed that he had to attend the proceedings of a writ petition No.27/2001, which was fixed before the High Court for hearing. It was further informed by the respondent employee that he had not received earlier court proceedings, hence, date of meeting was fixed on 19/9/2006. On the aforesaid date also, the respondent employee was absent on the ground of fixing the case before the Court, then the next date of meeting was fixed as 20/9/2006. On the aforesaid date, the respondent employee was present and again the examination in chief of Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1) was continued and the enquiry officer requested the respondent employee to cross-examine MW/1, however, the respondent employee requested that he be given time to cross-examine MW/1. Thereafter,.the next date of meeting was fixed as 17/11/2006. On the aforesaid date, witness Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1) was not available for cross-examination, because he had to attend an interview at Indore and thereafter, the management requested the enquiry officer for recording evidence of another management witness Mr. T.B.Ninanve (MW/2), consequently his evidence was recorded and another date was fixed as 18/8/2006. On the aforesaid date, Mr.S.D. Gupta (MW/1) was present for cross-examination, however, the respondent employee was not present due to court case and the proceedings were adjourned upto 3.00 O'clock and thereafter the proceedings were fixed on next day i.e. on 19/8/2006. On the aforesaid date, Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1) was present for cross-examination and thereafter the evidence of MW/1 was recorded and the next date was fixed as 18/11/2006. On the aforesaid date also, Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1) was present for cross-examination, however, the respondent employee refused to cross-examine Mr. Gupta and thereafter the management produced another witness Smt. Dipti Saxena (MW/3). Her evidence was recorded and thereafter the evidence of Mr. O.P. Jain (MW/4) was recorded, because the respondent employee did not cross-examine the Smt. Dipti Saxena (MW/3). Thereafter, the case was listed on 12/12/2006. On the aforesaid date also, Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1) was present for cross-examination, however, the respondent employee requested that the proceedings be fixed on another date, because he had to attend the case before the High Court. Thereafter, the case was listed on 12/12/2006. On the aforesaid date also, Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1) was present for cross-examination, however, the respondent employee requested that the proceedings be fixed on another date, because he had to attend the case before the High Court. The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the respondent employee did not inform that what was the nature of proceedings before the Court, hence, the enquiry shall continue on day to day basis and employee would participate in the enquiry and no further notice shall be issued for the purpose of date of the enquiry. The next date was fixed as 12/12/2006 and another management witness Mr. Praveen Kumar-Jain (MW/5) was examined, thereafter, evidence of Mr. Arun Kumar Saxena (MW/6) was recorded and the case was fixed for 13 12 2006. On the aforesaid date, the respondent employee requested that he could not participate in the enquiry, because he had to attend the court proceedings and then, the statement of Mr. Rajiv Sharma (MW/7) was recorded and on the next date 14/12/2006 the enquiry was continued and it was observed that the employee be informed by telegram and thereafter, the enquiry proceedings were continued upto 11.30 O'clock. The statement of Mr. K.C. Agrawal (MW/9) was recorded and thereafter the statement of Mr.Manoj Pandey (MW/10) was recorded. Then on 15/12/2006, the statement of Ms. Prema Devi Tiwari (MW/11) was recorded. The another date was fixed on 16/12/2006 and the statement of Vandana Shrivastava (MW/12) was recorded. Thereafter, the case was fixed on 27/12/2006. On the aforesaid date, the respondent employee was present. He submitted his written statement and requested that the enquiry again be postponed. Thereafter, the statements of MW/12 and Mr. Vasulal (MW 13) were recorded. The next date was fixed as 19/2/2007. On the aforesaid date, the respondent employee was present. He had cross-examined Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain (MW/5) and his defence representative also cross-examined the MW/5. Thereafter, lie cross-examined Mr. A.K. Saxena (MW/6). and Mr. O.P. Jain (MW/4). Then, the date of proceedings was fixed on 20/2/2007. On the aforesaid date, the defence representative Mr. S.K. Singh was present and the respondent employee was also present. The cross-examination of Mr. Jain (MW/4) was continued. Thereafter, the defence representative crossexamined Mr. K.C. Agrawal (MW/9), Mr. Vasulal (MW/13), Ms. Vandana Shrivastava (MW/12), Mr. Manoj Pandey (MW/10). O.P. Jain (MW/4). Then, the date of proceedings was fixed on 20/2/2007. On the aforesaid date, the defence representative Mr. S.K. Singh was present and the respondent employee was also present. The cross-examination of Mr. Jain (MW/4) was continued. Thereafter, the defence representative crossexamined Mr. K.C. Agrawal (MW/9), Mr. Vasulal (MW/13), Ms. Vandana Shrivastava (MW/12), Mr. Manoj Pandey (MW/10). At that time, the other witnesses of the management were not present. Lastly, the management produced Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1) for crossexamination and for the aforesaid purpose, the defence representative sought time. He further submitted that he had been cross-examining the witnesses for the last three days, hence, it would not be possible for him to continue the cross-examination. Thereafter, the proceedings were held on 22/2/2007. On the aforesaid date, Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1) and the respondent employee were present. The respondent employee was directed to cross-examine Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1), but he refused to do so. He specifically deposed that he could not cross-examine Mr. S.D. Gupta and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer postponed the enquiry upto 3.30 O'clock on the ground that in the absence of cross-examination, the enquiry proceedings were closed and then the management witness Mr. S.D. Gupta was present. On the aforesaid date, the respondent employee refused to cross-examine him, then the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry proceedings and submitted his enquiry report. A written statement was also filed before the Enquiry Officer. (12) From the aforesaid facts stated above in this order, it is clear that number of opportunities were given to the respondent employee to cross-examine the management witnesses, however, he did not avail the aforesaid opportunities. The Enquiry Officer recorded the examination in chief of all the management witnesses, because, the respondent employee refused to cross-examine them. Subsequently, he refused to cross-examine most of the management witnesses and nearabout four witnesses were not cross-examined by the respondent employee in spite of three opportunities were given to him. The defence representative cross-examined all the witnesses except four witnesses. The learned Single Judge observance, that the Enquiry Officer adopted a strange procedure in recording the examination in chief of the witnesses without recording their cross-examination, has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case. As narrated above in this order, the respondent employee was bent upon not to crossexamine the management witnesses. The learned Single Judge observance, that the Enquiry Officer adopted a strange procedure in recording the examination in chief of the witnesses without recording their cross-examination, has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case. As narrated above in this order, the respondent employee was bent upon not to crossexamine the management witnesses. In that circumstance, the Enquiry Officer recorded examination in chief of the witnesses. The respondent employee had taken a defence that he had to attend the court case and he did not inform the Enquiry Officer that for what purpose the case was listed. He did not file any document before this Court also to the effect that for what purpose, the case was listed. During the course of arguments, we came to know that the case was listed only for the purpose of attendance. The attendance means the bundle proceedings and for that purpose the employee could sign the ordersheet of the Court and because the case was fixed at Gwalior and the departmental enquiry proceedings were also running at Gwalior, hence, he could have easily come after signing the ordersheet in regard to his attendance within an hour. From the conduct of the employee respondent, we have gathered an impression that in order to avoid the departmental proceedings or lingering on the same, the respondent employee do the same. Even though it has to be seen that if the respondent employee could not cross-examine the management witnesses, what prejudice was caused to him. Mr. S.D. Gupta (MW/1) was available for cross-examination on nearabout 10 times and even though he was not cross-examined. (13) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and others, reported in (2011) 2SCC316has held as under in regard to procedural irregularities: "37. In State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 ; this Court held that: "33. (3)... Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except in cases falling under-'no notice', 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice viz. whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively."-38. Except in cases falling under-'no notice', 'no opportunity' and 'no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice viz. whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively."-38. In the present case, we have noticed above that the respondent did not even care to submit the list of documents within the stipulated time. Further, he did not even care to specify the relevance of the documents sought to be requisitioned. In our opinion, the appellant Bank has not transgressed any of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment whilst conducting and concluding the departmental proceedings against the respondent. Therefore, the aforesaid observations in S.K Sharma case are of no avail to the respondent." (14) The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of State Bank of India vs. Hemant Kumar, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 355 has held as under in regard to observance of principle of natural justice in industrial jurisprudence: "12. We are of the view that both the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for condemning the departmental enquiry as defective are completely untenable. The principles of natural justice cannot be stretched to a point where they would render the in house proceedings unworkable. Admittedly, the respondent had not appeared for the enquiry on two earlier dates. On the third date too he was absent and there was no intimation from him before the enquiry officer, yet the Tribunal insists that it was the duty of the enquiry officer to find out from the department concerned of the bank whether any intimation or application was received from the respondent. 13. Let us take a case where-the enquiry is not being held in the bank premises or even in the same town, where the branch of the bank concerned is located. In such a situation, it may take hours or even a day or two to find out whether any letter or intimation from the person facing the enquiry was received in the bank and for all that time the Enquiry Committee would remain in suspended animation. The Tribunal's observation that it was only the third date of hearing and hence, it could not be said that the respondent had adopted dilatory tactics can only be described as unfortunate. 14. The Tribunal's observation that it was only the third date of hearing and hence, it could not be said that the respondent had adopted dilatory tactics can only be described as unfortunate. 14. We completely reject the notion that three barren dates in an in-house proceeding do not amount to delay. Let the in-house proceedings at least be conducted expeditiously and without any undue loss of time." (15) From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically held that let the in-house proceedings at least be conducted expeditiously and without any undue loss of time. In the present case, as stated above, in our opinion, the Enquiry Officer had given sufficient opportunities to the respondent employee, the respondent employee has not pointed out that what prejudice caused to him and there was delay in enquiry procedings, hence, the Enquiry Officer has rightly conducted the enquiry. In such circumstance, in our opinion, it would not be just and proper to quash the enquiry proceedings under the writ jurisdiction. In our opinion, it would be just and proper that the respondent employee be given an opportunity to raise an industrial dispute and the Industrial Tribunal can consider that whether the enquiry proceedings initiated against the respondent employee is in accordance with law or not. If the Tribunal finds that the enquiry proceedings are not proper, the Tribunal can quash the domestic enquiry proceedings and also provide an opportunity to the management to prove the misconduct before the Industrial Tribunal, that would be the just and proper course looking to the facts and circumstance of the case. (16) Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellants Bank is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed. It is hereby directed that the respondent employee is given a liberty to raise the Industrial dispute in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and findings recorded by this Court in this order, would not come in the way of adjudication of industrial dispute. No order as to costs.