JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-Leave granted.

2. In this appeal the appellant is assailing the order made on 29.5.1999 by the learned single Judge of the High Court in CWJC No. 1458 of 1997(R) as well as the order of the Division Bench of the High Court confirming the same.

3. At the instance of sponsoring union of a dispute was referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, No.1, Dhanbad (for short Tribunal ). The dispute was " whether the management of M/s. IISCO Ltd., Chasnalla Colliery, P.O. Chasnalla, Distt. Dhanbad was justified in terminating the services of Shri Prahlad Singh, Magazine Clerk vide their letter No. 28 (IV) /2008 dated 8.10.1974. If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled."

4. The Tribunal, after considering the material placed before it and taking into consideration the submissions made, recorded findings that the respondent workman lost his lien on the appointment in view of the orders 10(f) and (h) of the Standing Orders having regard to the facts of the case either admitted or found established. The Tribunal based on records also took note of the fact that the claim of the respondent workman in raising the dispute after a period of about 13 years from the date of termination was too stale to grant any relief. In this view the Tribunal held that order of termination of services of the respondent was justified and he was not entitled to any relief. It is this award which was assailed by the respondent before the learned single Judge of the High Court in the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed quashing the award of the Tribunal, directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent in service with full back wages from the date when the dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to the Tribunal for adjudication. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged this order of the learned single Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court. In these circumstances appellant has approached this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned orders could not be sustained at all; the learned single Judge was not right in quashing the award passed by the Tribunal without even stating as to how the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal were wrong; the learned single Judge did not also find that the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal were either perverse or unreasonable. Similarly the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in dismissing the appeal without examining the questions raised in the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent argued in support and justification of the impugned orders stating that even if the claim had become stale the relief could be moulded appropriately

7. We have carefully examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent was granted leave from 1.7.1974 to 20.9.1974. He did not resume duty after expiry of the said period of leave. After waiting for more than two weeks the appellant issued notice dated 8.10.1974 terminating the services of the respondent with effect from 21.9.1974. On the basis of material placed on record the Tribunal found that after receiving the letter dated 8.10.1974 terminating his services the respondent slept over for a period of about 13 years. It is only in April, 1987 the respondent wrote letters to the appellant that too without making any reference to his alleged illness. Orders 10(f) and (h) of the Standing Orders read as follows :

"10(f) If a workman remains absent beyond the period of leave originally granted subsequently extended, he shall lose lien on his appointment unless he :

(a) returns within ten days of expiry of his leave and

(b) explains to the satisfaction of the manager his inability to return on the expiry of his leave."

xxx xxx xxx

"(h) Notwithstanding anything mentioned above, any workmen who overstays his sanctioned lea