Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The petition impugns the award dated 5th August, 1999 of the Industrial Adjudicator granting the relief to the respondent No. 2 workman of reinstatement with 75% of the back wages. The petition came up before this Court first on 5th May, 2000 when the counsel for the petitioner employer stated that the challenge was being made only to the extent of grant of 75% of the back wages. Notice of the petition was issued and the award to the extent of grant of 75% of the back wages was stayed and remains stayed. The counsels have informed that though the respondent No. 2 workman, in implementation of the award was reinstated but thereafter the petitioner employer effected closure and closure compensation has been paid to the respondent No. 2 workman and the dispute in that regard does not survive. The counsels have argued only on the validity of the award in so far as for back wages to the extent of 75%. The termination being of 3rd June, 1988 and the award being of 5th August, 1999, the period of back wages is for a period of approximately 11 years. It was enquired from the counsel for the petitioner employer as to what was the amount due under the award; the counsel states that no computation has been done. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 workman states that back wages, even if calculated at the rate of minimum wages, approximately `3.75 lacs would be due under the award.

2. The Industrial Adjudicator though holding that on termination being held illegal, workman becomes entitled to full back wages, reduced the same by 25% for the reason of the respondent No. 2 workman having not re-joined the service despite offer by the petitioner employer. The counsel for the petitioner employer has contended that in the face of the said finding of fact of the respondent No. 2 workman having not joined service inspite of offer of the petitioner employer, the Industrial Adjudicator ought not to have awarded any back wages whatsoever to the respondent No. 2 workman.

3. In the facts of the present case, as well as similar facts in other cases coming before this Court, a very disturbing feature which emerges is of a dispute being referred and entertained and kept pending inspite of the employers taking a stand on record of having not terminated the services and/or of being willing to take back the workman. It appears that references are being made, disputes entertained and kept pending without regard to the pleadings. Once the employer, before the Conciliator or before the Industrial Adjudicator takes a stand that no termination had been effected or the termination even if effected, the employer is willing to take back the workman or that it is the workman who had abandoned the employment, the dispute at least in so far as of cessation of employment, ought not to be referred, entertained or kept pending and immediate directions/orders should be made to make the workman join back duty with the employer and to make the employer so pleading take back the workman on duty. The special process, of pre-dispute conciliation and courts of Industrial Adjudicators were created/established under the Industrial Disputes Act feeling the need for special treatment for workmen and for disposing of the dispute(s) of the workmen with their employers expeditiously and to avoid the workmen from venting their grievances in the Civil Court, proceedings wherein were felt to be technical and long drawn. It was expected that by creating such special procedure and forum, the adjudication of the said disputes would be free from the technicalities of the civil procedure which the Civil Court is required to follow and will provide a forum where the disputes would be considered, dealt with and adjudicated with a humane approach and expeditiously. However it appears that somewhere along the way, the said purpose behind establishment of the Industrial Adjudicators and Conciliators has been lost and the Conciliators instead of bringing about conciliation