(1) IN this appeal the appellant MCD is between the devil and the deep sea. This situation is of its own creation. respondent 1 at the relevant time was working as Non-Technical Staff (for short NTS) on muster-roll as daily- wager. He was appointed on 1/6/1978. At that time he was working under Delhi Development Authority (DDA) whose successor-in-interest is the present appellant, MCD. In the year 1981 he was alleged to have committed misconduct of persuading fellow workman Shri Mahender Kumar to interpolate the name of respondent 1 along with Mahender Kumars name in the list of recommended employees for regularisation in service. It appears that the appellants conducted a preliminary enquiry into this alleged misconduct of respondent 1 and Mahender Kumar and thereafter in the light of the proceedings in the preliminary enquiry and presumably relying upon the statements recorded therein a discharge order was passed against Respondent I, which requires to be noted in extenso.

"OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL ENGINEER (SLUMS) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY No. D/608/SE(S)/11/89 Dated 29/7/1981 Shri Parveen Kumar Jain, N.T.S., is hereby informed that his services are not required in this organisation w.e.f. 1/8/1981. sd/- (RAMESH KUMAR) Executive Engineer-II(S) A 28/7/1981 Shri Parveen Kumar Jain M.T.S. Through A.E. II N.O.O. Copy to A E II (S) for information with a direction to instruct his J.E. not to allow Shri Parveen Kumar Jain, N.T.S. to continue after 31/7/198181. Copy to S.E. (S) for information with reference to his letter No. SE/5604/31/EI/953. sd/- Executive Engineer."

(2) IT is this order which was not interfered with in departmental appeal and consequently an industrial dispute was raised by Respondent 1.. The said dispute came to be adjudicated upon by the Presiding Officer, Labour court, Delhi. The terms of the reference were as under:

"WHETHER the termination of services of Shri Parveen Kumar is legal/justified, if not what directions are necessary in this behalf."

(3) A preliminary issue was framed by the then Presiding Officer as to whether the enquiry conducted by the Management was valid and proper and it was answered in favour of the appellant-Management. However, the Successor-Presiding Officer came to the conclusion on the merits of the controversy that there was no legal evidence to justify the order of termination as passed against Respondent 1. It was found that even the additional evidence which he permitted the appellant to produce before the Court by way of examination of Shri S.C. Mittal, Executive Engineer under whom respondent 1 was working at the relevant time did not show any involvement of respondent 1 in the alleged misconduct. It was also observed that there was nothing to show and in the cross-examination of Respondent 1 nothing was brought out to indicate that respondent 1 was earning anything after his termination by the Management. Under these circumstances, the Presiding Officer of the Labour court directed reinstatement of respondent 1 in service with full back wages and continuity of service. The said award of the Labour court was unsuccessfully challenged before the High court in writ petition and that is how the appellant is before us in this appeal on grant of special leave to appeal.

(4) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for Respondent 1. In our view, an impossible situation has been created for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant was right when he contended that in the statement of respondent 1 recorded in the preliminary enquiry he had clearly admitted that he had typed only seven names of persons eligible for being regularised and the additional two names of Mahender Kumar and himself were not typed by him. This showed that Mahender Kumar had got these two names inserted and if the benefit of the name of respondent 1 was to accrue on account of such interpolation, on broad probabilities respondent 1 co