Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. The legality of the Award dated 20-12-2005 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar in Reference Case No. 6 of 1995 directing the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the respondent No. 1 to his former post with full back wages, is called into question in this writ petition. The petitioner is a Corporation and a Government of India Undertaking, having its registered office at South Tower (4th Floor) Scope Minar Complex, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi. The Corporation set up two units in Assam, namely, Nagaon Paper Mill (NP),which started its production in 1985 and, the petitioner No. 2, namely, Cachar Paper Mill (CPM) which started production in 1988. The Corporation is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various varieties of paper and newsprints and a small quantity of caustic soda and chlorine. The respondent was the workman of the petitioner No. 2, who was appointed as unskilled worker on 1-3-1986 in lieu of the acquisition of the land of his father by the Corporation for establishment of the unit. According to the petitioner-Corporation, the respondent No. 1 became habitual unauthorized absentee from 4-4-1988 to 24-2-1989 i.e. for a period of 385 days. However, on his written assurance that he was ready to face any action against him if he repeated his habitual absenteeism, his case was sympathetically considered by the petitioner, and he was accordingly given fresh appointment on 24-4-1989. Unfortunately, he again unauthorizedly absent from duty from 31-7-1989 to 10-7-1990, for a period of 211 days from 27-10-1990 to 28-2-1991 i.e. for a period of 102 days and thereafter from 19-3-1991 onwards. This compelled the petitioners to strike off the name of the respondent No. 1 from the roll of the company till the date of his termination. The respondent No. 1 was thereafter given an opportunity to explain his absence from duty. When he neither gave satisfactory explanation nor resumed his duty, the petitioners, therefore, presumed that the respondent No. 1 had voluntarily abandoned his service and accordingly informed him vide the letter dated 9-10-1991 that his name had been struck off in accordance with the provisions of the Certified Standings Orders.

2. Aggrieved by termination of his service, the petitioner approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 1156/93, and this Court by the order dated 29-6-1994 referred the matter for conciliation before the Labour Court or Tribunal as the writ petition involved an industrial dispute. It was further directed therein that in the event of failure of the conciliation process, the Labour Officer, Hailakandi should make a report to the State Government within two months from the date of complaint and the State Government should thereafter pass appropriate order under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for short) for referring the dispute to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal as the case may be. In pursuance of the said order, the dispute was referred to the Labour Officer, Hailakandi for conciliation and when the conciliation process failed, the dispute was eventually referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar ("the Tribunal") under Section 10 of the Act for adjudication. Though the Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that though the Management was not at fault in dismissing the respondent No. 1 from service, it nevertheless, passed the award dated 18-12-1998 directing the petitioners to give fresh appointment to the respondent No. 1 together with 1/4th of his back wages to be calculated from 13-4-1991.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed WP(C) No. 3317/99 before this Court questioning the legality of the award dated 18-12-1998. The respondent No. 1 also filed WP(C) No. 1939/99 before this Court praying for full back wages. This Court by a common judgment and order bearing dated 26-2-2004 disposed of the two writ petitions by directing the Tribunal to hold a de novo adjudication of Reference Ca