(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) HEARD counsel on both sides.

(3) WE find that there is considerable force in the grievance of the appellant that the appellant has been made to pay for the lethargy of the respondent- employee. The facts reveal that to avoid being apprehended by the police the respondent left and then remained absent without leave whereupon his services were terminated by an order dated 23/8/1980. Thereafter, the respondent- employee did not do anything in the matter till he moved for conciliation on 5/2/199191 i.e. after a decade. Since the dispute could not be resolved in conciliation proceedings, a reference was made on 27/9/1991 for adjudication. The Labour Court came (sic) and directed reinstatement with full back wages. Against that order the appellant approached the High court. The appellants writ petition was dismissed in limine. Against the said order the present appeal came to be filed. At the preliminary hearing we issued notice limited to the question of back wages, since the employee had been reinstated in service.

(4) AS stated above the grievance of the appellant is that it was the employee who was to blame for not initiatin