Heard the parties.

2. M/s Sasa Musa Sugar Works, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 11616 of 2003 is employer under the meaning of Section 2(g) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereas Ramesh Prasad Kunwar, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8465 of 2004 and the respondent No.2 in C.W.J.C. No. 11616 of 2003, is the workman under the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The award dated 20.06.2003 passed in Industrial Dispute Reference Case No. 18 of 1992 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chapra is under challenge in both the writ petitions and, therefore, with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions have been taken up together for final disposal. The employer has prayed for setting aside the impugned award dated 20.6.2003, whereby reference has been answered in favour of the workman and his removal/retrenchment from service from the post of clerk has been held to be illegal and in contravention of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, and, therefore, the workman has been directed to be reinstated with 50% of entire back wages.

3. The workman, in his separate writ petition, though has substantially supported the impugned award, but he is aggrieved by the last portion of the award, whereby his reinstatement has been directed only with 50% of entire back wages. According to the workman, the learned Labour Court having decided all the issues in his favour, should have directed for his reinstatement in service with full back wages.

4. The writ petition by the employer was filed in the year 2003 and since the workman was not reinstated in his service in terms of the award, therefore, I.A. No. 7377 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the workman praying therein that till the matter is finally disposed of, the employer may be directed to pay full wages to the workman in terms of Section 17B of the Act. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of employer disputing the averments made in the aforesaid interlocutory application and the employer has tried to establish that during the intervening period, the workman was gainfully ., engaged in some service/employment.

5. However, counsel appearing for the parties finally agreed that instead of deciding the issue involved in I.A. No. 7377 of 2010, main matter itself may be taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions as well as I.A. No. 7377 of 2010 were taken up together and were heard on different dates and on conclusion of hearing from both sides, the matters have been fixed today for passing final orders.

6. For disposal of both the writ petitions as also I.A. No. 7377 of 2010, I will go by the party position and the pleadings occurring in C.W.J.C. No. 11616 of 2003 except by specific reference to connected matters. According to the employer, the workman (respondent no.2 herein) was appointed on the post of cane clerk in December, 1990 and he was disengaged from service with effect from 02.5.1991. However, according to the workman (respondent no.2) he was appointed on the post of Clerk on 09.07.1990 and he was retrenched from service with effect from 02.05.1991 without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act. An industrial dispute raised on behalf of workman, on failure of conciliation proceeding, was referred by the appropriate Government in terms of Section 10(1)(c)of the Act by a notification dated 28.10.1992 for adjudication, which was received by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chapra and accordingly Industrial Dispute Reference Case No. 18 of 1992 was registered. On issuance of notice both sides appeared before the learned Labour Court and submitted their show cause/ written statement in support of their respective claims. From the side of employer two witnesses were examined, where as from the side of workman he himself was examined as witness no.1. From both sides certain documentary evidence were also produced before the learned Lab