JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The Management of Khurda Khurda Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Khurda has preferred this writ petition assailing the award dated 3.1.2011 passed in I.D. Case No. 80 of 2008 whereby and where under order has been passed for reinstatement with full back wages along with other service benefits. 2. The factual aspect of the case is that the workman was a permanent Cadre Secretary under the Management working since 8.2.1977, during his tenure he was transferred from one Branch to another Branch at different periods. In the year 1987 he was working in the Begunia Service Cooperative Society where he worked till 18.8.1987 where after he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 14.8.1987. A departmental proceeding was drawn up against him on 15.10.1987, he was not furnished with relevant documents, however he submitted his explanation on29.9.1988 without going through the relevant documents. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the Management fixed the enquiry to be held at Kalika Prasad even though headquarters of the workman was at Begunia, he had requested to hold the enquiry at Begunia but it was not headed, subsistence allowance for the period from 1.2.1990 to 14.2.1990 was not paid to him. The management has passed order of dismissal on 2.3.1990 to take effect from 14.2.1990. Prior to that copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him nor he was asked to submit second show cause, as such the enquiry proceeding is without following the principle of natural justice and without giving adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the workman. 3. While, on the other hand, case of the management is that while working in the cadre Secretary in different Branches the workman has misappropriated huge amount from the funds of Service Cooperative Society at Kalika Prasad, Podadiha and Bada Pokharia amounting to Rs.99,375.48 paise which was found from the enquiry report of the Circle R.I. as well as audit report. Before initiation of the departmental proceeding the workman was asked to deposit the amount but did not respond, so the management was compelled to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him. Before initiation of the departmental proceeding the workman was asked to deposit the amount but did not respond, so the management was compelled to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him. Enquiry Officer was appointed by the management who had conducted enquiry in fair manner but the workman did not appear to participate in the enquiry and as such on completion of the enquiry the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report finding the workman guilty of all charges and holding him liable for a sum of Rs.90,637.37 paise only. The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration seriousness of the allegations has passed order of dismissal from service. 4. The workman being aggrieved with the order of dismissal has raised a dispute which has culminated into the following reference: “Whether the termination of services of Sri Melachha Pradhan, Cadre Secretary by the Secretary, Khurda Central Cooperative Bank, Khurda w.e.f. 14.2.90 is legal and/or justified ? 4. The workman being aggrieved with the order of dismissal has raised a dispute which has culminated into the following reference: “Whether the termination of services of Sri Melachha Pradhan, Cadre Secretary by the Secretary, Khurda Central Cooperative Bank, Khurda w.e.f. 14.2.90 is legal and/or justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?” The Tribunal on appreciation of the factual aspects has passed the award by registering Industrial Dispute Case No.280 of 1995 whereby and where under the order has been passed by the Tribunal directing for reinstatement of the workman into service by granting liberty to the management to recover admitted amount of Rs.30,000/- from the salary of the workman in installments, against which a writ petition had been filed before this Court being W.P.(C) No. 7342 of 2009, this Court had set aside the award passed on 13.2.2009 in I.D. Case No. 280 of 1995 filed by the workman dated 18.3.2010 and the matter was remitted back before the Tribunal for re-adjudication by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, in consequence thereof the Industrial Dispute case No.80 of 2008 has been registered wherein the award has been passed directing reinstatement of the workman into service with full back wages along with other service benefits which is under challenge by the management on the ground that when on the initial occasion i.e. at the time of adjudicating I.D. Case No. 280 of 1995 order had been passed by the Tribunal for reinstatement without back wages with the liberty to the management to recover Rs.30,000/- from the salary in installments, but in the subsequent I.D. Case No. 80 of 2008 order of reinstatement with full back wages along with other service benefits has been passed which is purely non-application of mind as because the Tribunal while passing this award has gone into the fact that the enquiry has not been conducted in regular manner. It has been submitted that even accepting this fact for the sake of argument that enquiry was not fair the right course for the Tribunal would be to remand the matter before the disciplinary authority to pass order after observing the principle of natural justice but on technical ground no benefit can be given to the workman who has been found to be involved in serious allegation of misappropriation of public money. 5. 5. When we are about to pass final order, learned counsel representing the workman, on instruction of the workman who is personally present in Court, has submitted that he is ready for settlement for the reason that there cannot be any order of reinstatement as he has already attained age of 60 years, hence only question remains to be decided regarding the quantum of back wages along with service benefits, to this argument, learned counsel representing the Management Mr. Somanath Mishra has submitted that as per the instruction he is ready for settlement as this Court may deem fit and proper but however, with liberty to the management to recover a sum of Rs.30,000/- as has been observed in the award passed by the Tribunal. We, after taking into consideration the fact that the order of dismissal has been passed in the year 1987 and during the pendency of the writ petition the workman has been superannuated from service and as such there cannot be order of reinstatement. The matter can be remanded but taking into consideration the fact that the dispute is of the year 1987 and the workman has attained the age of more than 60 years and also considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties regarding one time settlement in order to avoid further litigation after lapse of 29 years, we thought it proper to close the dispute by passing order of settlement with direction to the management to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to the workman with liberty to the management to disburse the said amount after deducting Rs.30,000/- which is recoverable from him. The said amount shall be paid in favour of the workman within period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the award dated 3.1.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case no.80 of 2008 is modified to the extent as indicated herein above. The writ petition is disposed of.