ORDER :

1. Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 227 of 2021 has been preferred by the management, challenging the order dated 14.06.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 3152 of 2020, whereby the writ petition preferred by the Management for quashing the award dated 20.08.2018 in Reference Case No. 01 of 2013 was dismissed.

Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 229 of 2021 has been filed by the Management against the judgment dated 14.06.2021 passed in W.P. (L) No. 1154 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the workmen was allowed in part by the learned Single Judge awarding 50% of the back wages from the period of termination/dismissal till reinstatement.

2. As both the issues arise out of same proceeding, thus, both these letters patent appeals are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The respondent-workman was an employee of the appellant-management. He was junior associate. On 1st June, 2012, management was distributing packets of sweets to its employees to celebrate the increase in production of the company. The management levelled an allegation against the workman that he and one Ranjit Singh instigated the other co-employees to return the sweet packets as the quality was not good. Due to such action of the respondent-workman, the programme of distribution of sweets got stalled by the management for an hour. Further, it has been alleged that the workman and his colleagues arranged pastries from outside and distributed the same amongst the workmen/employees. As per the management, aforesaid act of the workman is an act of indiscipline for which a chargesheet was issued to the workman on 12.01.2012. The workman submitted his explanation, which was not accepted, thus, the management decided to hold domestic enquiry. One, Advocate, Mr. A.N. Sinha was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was held on 20.03.2012, when one Mr. S. Majumdar represented the management and the workman was present. The enquiry was concluded and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, wherein the Enquiry Officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be substantiated. On the basis of enquiry report, the management, vide order dated 03.09.2012, dismissed the workman from service. The workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur for answering the reference. The terms of reference is as under:

(i) Whether, dismissal from service of Sri Kripa Shankar Tiwari, Ex. P. No. 0871, Workman, M/s Tata Steel Processing and Distributing Limited, Bara, Agrico, Jamshedpur is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?

4. The Labour Court, at the preliminary stage, held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and the principles of natural justice has not been followed. After holding the same, the Labour Court gave opportunity to the management to lead evidence on the merits of the case. The management challenged the preliminary order in W.P. (L) No. 3043 of 2017 but, during pendency of the writ petition, the reference was answered in favour of the workman with a direction to reinstate him without back wages.

5. The workman approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 1154 of 2019 with a prayer to modify the award to the extend that he is entitled for full back wages. The management preferred W.P. (L) No. 3152 of 2020 challenging the award of reinstatement.

6. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition filed by the management whereas partly allowed the writ petition filed by the workman by granting 50% back wages from the date of termination till his reinstatement.

7. Be it noted that the award of reinstatement has been given effect to and the workman was already reinstated.

8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V.P. Singh, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that when the charges were proved against the workman, then the Tribunal could not have set aside the order of termination. As per him, learned Single Ju