JUDGMENT : Subrata Talukdar, J. This writ application is directed against the impugned order of reference of an industrial dispute dated 12th May, 1999 marked annexure P-6 to the writ application and the impugned industrial award dated 28th June, 2001 being annexure P-8 as passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata (for short the Ld. Tribunal) vide the Reference No. 18 of 1999. 2. The writ petitioner is the bank being the United Bank of India (for short the Bank). At the core of the dispute is the Scheme introduced by the Bank in the year 1979 granting Special Leave for a maximum period of 360 days to the Members of the staff who have rendered 18 years of continuous service and, who may be suffering from 10 types of serious diseases as also, when leave of all descriptions have been exhausted by such employee. By the said Scheme such employees also became eligible for grant of an additional sum of Rs. 250 when the usual medical allowances are exhausted. The authority to sanction such leave was vested with the Chairman or at least 3 Deputy General Managers of the Bank, subject to review by the Board every year. 3. Sri R.N. Majumder, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the said Scheme was not a condition of service covered under the Bipartite Settlement between the bank and their non-officer employees. Referring to several memos of the Government of India, Sri Majumder argues that all banks including the Bank were instructed not to grant any additional benefits to the officers/award staff employees which are outside the purview of the officers' service regulations/Bipartite Settlement without obtaining the prior permission of the Central Government. 4. Sri Majumder submits that such Government Instructions have commenced in the year 1994 and have continued till the year 1996. Pursuant to such Government Instructions the Bank was persuaded to withdraw the said Scheme which it did by issuing a notice dated 6th September, 1996 under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the ID Act). Such 9A notice was legally required to be issued since the benefits extended to the award employees fell within the class of benefits covered under the Fourth Schedule of the ID Act. 5. Such 9A notice was legally required to be issued since the benefits extended to the award employees fell within the class of benefits covered under the Fourth Schedule of the ID Act. 5. Sri Majumder also takes this Court to Section 8 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (for short the 1970 Act). Relying on Section 8 (supra) Sri Majumder submits that it is the obligation of every bank to be guided by such directions in regard to such matter involving public interest as the Central Government may, after consultation with the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, give. 6. Therefore, Sri Majumder points out that in view of the instructions received from the Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), Government of Indian commencing 1994 up to 1996 it became necessary under Section 8 (supra) to act in terms of such instructions and therefore, the Bank issued the notice under Section 9A of the ID Act (supra) on the 6th of September, 1996. 7. Although repeatedly affidavit-in-service has been filed by the petitioner, none has appeared to oppose the writ petition. Considering the age of the writ petition this Court was of the opinion that Sri Majumder be heard and the matter considered finally on merits. 8. From the records it transpires that the effective respondent no.2 being the Bank Employees Union (for short the Union) protested the notice dated 6th September, 1996 and therefore by the impugned communication dated 12th May, 1999 a reference was made under Section 10 of the ID Act to the Ld. Tribunal on the point whether the action of the Bank in withdrawing the said Scheme is justified and, if not, the relief that can be claimed by the employees. 9. The Reference was given the No. 18 of 1999 and the Union filed its Statement before the Ld. Tribunal pointing out that the said Scheme is an utterly humanitarian one and not at all contrary to the spirit of the Bipartite Settlement. It was also pointed out by the Union that the claims were by their very nature confined to a small group of gravely distressed bank employees found suffering on two grounds of any of the acute diseases of the 10 types stated in the Scheme as well as exhaustion of all their medical leave. It was also pointed out by the Union that the claims were by their very nature confined to a small group of gravely distressed bank employees found suffering on two grounds of any of the acute diseases of the 10 types stated in the Scheme as well as exhaustion of all their medical leave. Therefore, according to the Union, the said Scheme was introduced for grant of extraordinary medical leave to meet the distress both out of the disease together with the small amount of medical allowance. 10. The Union raised the further point that although notice was issued under Section 9A of the ID Act on 6th September, 1996, such notice could not have been given effect to within a period of 21 days of its issue and, the Union wrote to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Bank within the said period of 21 days, i.e. on 25th September, 1996. However, without receiving any response from the Bank, the said Scheme was unilaterally withdrawn. 11. Before the Ld. Tribunal the Bank contested the above position and, in its Written Statement submitted that the letter of the Union dated 25th September, 1996 was replied to by the bank on 3rd October, 1996. Therefore, the charge of an un-replied letter does not stand. 12. By the impugned award passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer on the 28th of June, 2001 it was, inter alia, held that although it is claimed by the Bank that the letter of the Union dated 25th September, 1996 was replied to, the copy of such reply was never produced before the Ld. Tribunal. 13. The Ld. Tribunal was of the further opinion that the said Scheme was withdrawn in haste and even if the bank was faced with the circulars of the Government of India between 1994 and 1996 it need not have withdrawn the Scheme without deciding all the aspects to such withdrawal and, if necessary, would have sought post facto approval from the Indian Banks Association (for short IBA)/Central Government. The Ld. Tribunal found the view of the Union acceptable that the said Scheme is of a humanitarian nature and directed towards only a few deserving persons. Additionally, the financial liability arising out of the said Scheme is not impossible to bear by the Bank. Therefore, the Ld. The Ld. Tribunal found the view of the Union acceptable that the said Scheme is of a humanitarian nature and directed towards only a few deserving persons. Additionally, the financial liability arising out of the said Scheme is not impossible to bear by the Bank. Therefore, the Ld. Tribunal found the action of the management to be arbitrary and directed reinstatement in consultation with the IBA properly. 14. Upon hearing Sri Majumder and on perusal of the records this Court finds that notwithstanding the argument in favour of due process being adopted by the Bank to make the point that the Bank has acted within the law while withdrawing the Scheme, this Court at the same time notices, in the words of the famous poet Robert Frost, that the Bank missed the wood for the trees. Rather the Bank was overwhelmed by the trees. 15. This Court also finds that the Ld. Tribunal has applied its mind to the deeper rationale behind the Scheme. This Court notices that the Ld. Tribunal correctly found that the Scheme is a humanitarian one and cannot be withdrawn by way of a knee-jerk reaction to certain circulars of the Central Government which directed withdrawal of additional benefits extended by the Banks which are not part of the service conditions/Bipartite Settlement without consulting the IBA/Central Government. As correctly held by the Ld. Tribunal the Bank should have given greater evidence of consultation at the appropriate levels and deeper application of mind before withdrawing the Scheme. 16. This Court also cannot be oblivious to the fact that such Scheme continued between 1979 for a period of nearly 17 years before being abruptly withdrawn in the face of certain circulars of the Central Government. This Court also notices that the Ld. Tribunal correctly held that the Scheme applied to only the very few who had been rendered remediless because of disease and expiry of leave. 17. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and notwithstanding the technical propriety of Sri Majumder's arguments, this Court does not find that the Ld. Tribunal erred in directing reinstatement of the Scheme in consultation with the IBA in a proper manner. WP 15514(W) of 2001 stands accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the non-appearing respondent nos. 2 and 3. Tribunal erred in directing reinstatement of the Scheme in consultation with the IBA in a proper manner. WP 15514(W) of 2001 stands accordingly dismissed. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the non-appearing respondent nos. 2 and 3. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.