SREEKUMARI .M. Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has been dismissed from service by the respondents and the final order passed in appeal is produced as Ext.P7 which is under challenge in the writ petition on various grounds.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank.

(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the Bank submitted that the petitioner had not even sought for an opportunity of personal hearing before the appellate authority. It is also submitted that the remedy of the petitioner is only to raise a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that if there is a provision for review, the petitioner may be extended the said benefit. But it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that there is no provision for review in these matters. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner sought for a fresh opportunity for personal hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank opposed the same. In the absence of any consensus, this Court will not be justified in issuing a direction as sought for, on the facts of this case. This writ petition is disposed of leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to raise the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is made clear that this Court has not considered anything on the merits of the contentions of both parties.