JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.08.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 4005 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been allowed with a direction to the respondent-Management to award 50% of the total back wages for the period from the date of termination till his date of reinstatement, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:

An industrial dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad relating to illegal termination of the writ-petitioner with the following terms:

“(i) Whether the action of the management of Jamadoba Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Limited in dismissing Shri Atique Khan Onsetter from the services of the company with effect from 05.01.2009 is justified and legal?

(ii) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

Upon issuance of notice, both the parties appeared and filed their respective written statements. The writ-petitioner completely denied the charges levelled against him as also denied that he had given electricity connection to any quarter or any private house in the neighbourhood as alleged in the charge-sheet issued to him. The writ-petitioner also clarified that the other allegations of the management that he had taken illegal electricity connection from his company’s quarter to his own adjacent private house, was also absolutely unfounded inasmuch as he had no private house near his quarter as alleged and as subsequently found in the enquiry also.

After submission of written statements, the Tribunal decided to treat the validity or otherwise of the enquiry held into the charges against the petitioner as a preliminary issue. Both the parties filed their documents and deposed before the Tribunal on the preliminary issue. Thereafter, the Tribunal held the enquiry to be fair and proper but at the same time held that the workman was never given any opportunity to adduce any witness. Finally, the Tribunal passed the award dated 09.12.2013, holding therein that the Enquiry Officer had not given any opportunity to the workman to adduce evidence in his defence and the management had failed to produce material to establish the charges and, therefore, though the departmental enquiry had been held to be fair and proper, the dismissal of writ-petitioner was not proper. It was also held that the writ-petitioner is entitled to reinstatement without giving him any back wages whatsoever.

3. It appears from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove that the workman while working under the Management has been subjected to departmental enquiry on the charge of providing electricity connection to others. The charge has been found to be proved. The workman has not questioned the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry. The Management has accepted the domestic enquiry report and has dismissed the writ-petitioner from service.

The workman raised dispute and accordingly the matter culminated into reference being Reference Case No. 33 of 2010 for adjudication as to (i) whether the action of the management of Jamadoba Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Limited in dismissing Shri Atique Khan Onsetter from the services of the company with effect from 05.01.2009 is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?

The Tribunal has passed an award on 09.12.2013 holding the action of the Management of M/s Tata Steel Limited in dismissing Shri Atique Khan, the workman, on-setter from the service of the Company w.e.f. 05.01.2009 to be unjustified and hence, he be directed to reinstated in service but without giving him any back wages whatsoever.

The workman being aggrieved with the part of the order, whereby and whereunder, the back wages has been denied,