R.K. Merathia, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the award dated 20.5.1997 pronounced on 14.1.1998 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi (respondent No. 1) in Reference Case No. 15 of 1992 (Annexure 1) directing reinstatement of respondent No. 2 with full back wages and consequential benefits.

2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication by notification dated 14.12.1992: Whether the termination of services of Gorakh Nath Prasad, Assistant Mechanic, Gammon India Limited, Birsa Chowk, Ranchi is proper? If not, whether he should be reinstated on work or/and should get compensation?

3. The case of respondent No. 2 was as follows. He was appointed as Assistant Mechanic on 27.9.1982 and continuously worked till 12.4.1984. He proceeded on leave on 13.4.1984 due to his sickness with due permission but he could not join his duty on expiry of leave due to serious sickness of his father. After four days of expiry of the sanctioned leave, when he reported for duty on 21.4.1984, he was not allowed to join on the plea that he should get his leave sanctioned by the Head Office of the petitioner-Company. Thereafter he reported for duty every day but he was not allowed. He was promised that sanction of leave will be obtained from the Head Office. Thus he had been on continuous service as there was no cessation of employer-employee relationship.

4. The case of the management in short is as follows. The dispute was stale as admittedly the workman claimed that he was not allowed to work from 21.4.1984 and the dispute was raised after about five years i.e. in the year 1989. The workman had left the work on 5.4.1983 after receiving his full and final payment and issued a no claim certificate (Ext. 1). Again in 1984, on his request he was given fresh employment on 1.4.1984 but only after working for 12 days, he left the work on his own. The management prepared the payment voucher for 12 days. The workman never turned up to receive the same. He remained silent and traceless for about five years and did not send any communication either to the Company or to any of its officers or to the Labour Department.

5. Mr. Bakshi, appearing for the petitioner submitted that earlier the State Government had refused to refer the dispute on the ground that the workman voluntarily stopped working and raised the dispute after five years. The workman moved the High Court vide CWJC No. 2625 of 1991 (R) which was disposed of directing the State Government to reconsider the matter, and then the present dispute was referred. Mr. Bakshi submitted that staleness of claim was integral part of the dispute raised by the petitioner-management which also was required to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. But the Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue saying that there is no limitation and that as the reference was made as per the High Court order, it cannot be rejected on this ground.

6. Mr. Bakshi further submitted that the award is perverse as no reasonable man could reach to the findings on the evidences available on the record. The workman clearly admitted that it was necessary to show the identity card at the Security for entering into the workshop. Admittedly he was working from 1982 and the purported identity card (Ext. A) was issued to him only on 27th March, 1984. He further submitted that in view of this admission of the workman, the Tribunal had to accept the contention of the management that the identity card was a fabricated document. He further submitted that the Tribunal could not ignore Ext. 1, which was a no claim certificate issued by the workman on 5.4.1983 confirming that he has received all the dues in full and final and he had no claim whatsoever against the Company. He further submitted that the petitioner specifically asserted that workman did not work for 240 days continuously in the year preceding his alleged termination, and thus, the onus was on the workman to prove such fact which he failed to discharge. He re