37,086.05.
During pendency of the said proceedings before the Tribunal, admittedly the Criminal Court held the respondent number guilty of companymission of the charge of removal of the said amount of Rs.
He was dismissed from services only after a show cause numberice was served on him.
He pleaded number guilty to the said charge both before the disciplinary authority as also the criminal companyrt.
Approval sought for was number granted on the premise that in passing the said order of termination, Clause 17 5 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation, which required the management to take into account the past record before passing the order of dismissal, was number companyplied with.
He was, therefore, acquitted.
Despite the fact that the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was allowed on 08.10.1999, by reason of an interim order of stay granted by the Division Bench, he companytinued in his service.
Appellant filed an application for approval of the said order of removal purported to be in terms of Section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short, the Act .
By reason of the impugned judgment, the Division Bench, as numbericed hereinbefore, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against him.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, Respondent preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In the disciplinary proceeding, he was, however, found to be guilty of the said charge.
Respondent herein was employed as a helper at Kumuli Depot of Appellant.
2534 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Civil No.
A Writ Petition was filed by the appellant questioning the said Order of the Labour Court which was marked as Writ Petition No.
A criminal companyplaint was lodged against him for alleged companymission of theft of Rs.37,086.05 on 03.11.1985.
12280 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
