IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 22673 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES UNION C/O. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY IT REGIONAL MANAGER,CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, P.B.NO.98, GOGAL BUILDING, THYVIAL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NEAR SOUTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R2 SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR. SRI. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 22673 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th September, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam in I.D.No. 134/2006. After hearing the petitioner elaborately, on 16-9-2009, I passed the following order: “Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length on the question of sustainability of the findings of guilt on the petitioner. His contention is that when the disciplinary authority came to a different finding from that of the enquiry officer on the question of guilt, the petitioner should have been given a notice by the disciplinary authority as to why the disciplinary authority wants to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer. But, when it was pointed out that the Labour Court had independently assessed the evidence available in the enquiry and came to the finding that the finding of guilt on the petitioner is sustainable on the basis of the evidence available in the enquiry, counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank may be directed to disburse the terminal benefits due to the petitioner expeditiously. Leaned counsel for the Bank sees time to obtain instructions from the Bank on this question.” 2. Now, the learned counsel for the bank submits that for paying the terminal benefits, the workman involved in the industrial dispute has to sign some papers and the terminal benefits due to the workman would be disbursed within three months from the date of signing the papers. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the workman would be present before the bank on 5th of October, 2009 to sign the papers. If the workman presents himself before the bank on 5th, all procedural formalities for disbursement of the terminal benefits due to the workman shall be completed on that day. The W.P.C. No. 22673/09 -: 2 :- terminal benefits due to the workman shall be disbursed within three months therefrom. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.