( 1 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as workman, for short) was employed as Masalchi in the Kitchen of Ashoka Hotel (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as Management, for short) which is managed by the petitioner-ITDC. Chargesheet was issued to the workman in March 1984 alleging that workman remained absent unauthorisedly. Departmental enquiry was held as per which he was found guilty of the charges framed against him and resultantly his services were terminated by the management vide order dated 13th June, 1984. Workman raised industrial dispute challenging his termination which was REFERRED TO for adjudication to the Labour Court (respondent No. 1) with the following terms of reference:-

"whether the termination of services of Shri Boman is illegal and or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

( 2 ) ON receipt of reference the Labour Court registered it as ID No. 275/96 (later renumbered as ID 1614/95 ). The workman filed his statement of claim making averments to the effect that he was employed with the management on 17th May, 1975 as a utility worker (Masalchi) and his services were terminated by the management w. e. f. 13th June, 1984 after serving a chargesheel and holding an enquiry. He challenged the finding of enquiry officer submitting that he was not given full and fair opportunity in the enquiry proceeding conducted against him and impugned order of dismissal was unjustified and malafide and by way of victimisation. He also submitted that the punishment awarded to him was highly disproportionate to the allegations levelled against him. Written statement was filed on behalf of tyhe Management contesting the claim of the workman staling that he was given full opportunity in the enquiry proceedings conducted against him wherein he was also assisted by a colleague and he has himself signed the enquiry proceedings without any protest. It was further sub- mitted that findings of enquiry officer were based on evidence produced before him. The enquiry officer had given due consideration to the explanation given by the workman as well as the evidence produced by him. The disciplinary authority was fully conscious of the human aspect by considering the past record also when the concerned workman had been awarded the punishment of stoppage of increment which did not bring any improvement in the conduct of the workman, the termination had to be resorted to. Various allegations made. in the statement of claim were denied. Workman file rejoinder thereto reiterating the averment made in the statement of claim. After the pleadings were completed the Labour Court framed following issues on 7th September, 1987:- (i) according to terms of reference; and (ii) relief.

( 3 ) ON 4th January, 1988 an additional issued as regards fairness and validity of enquiry was framed which was treated as preliminary issue. Evidence was led on this preliminary issue and arguments heard and thereafter vide order dated 20th March, 1990 this issue was decided in favour of workman and the domestic enquiry conducted against him was set aside. However, since the Management had sought permission of the Court for adducing evidence in the Court to substantiate the allegation against the workman, an opportunity was given to them and workman was also allowed to lead his evidence. One witness was examined on behalf of the Management. Workman also examined himself as well as one more witness. Thereafter arguments were heard and the impugned award dated 22nd March, 1997 was passed, setting aside the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman and reinstating him with full back wages and continuity of service. It is against this award that the present writ petition has been filed by the management.

( 4 ) A perusal of the award would show that the management has been able to successfully prove the charges levelled against the workman by adducing evidence before the labour Court.