JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who was working as a Dumper Operator and terminated from service on 07.11.1990 and subsequently reinstated in service on 27.05.2009, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 01.03.2016 under Annexure-1, by which he has been denied the benefit of promotion and other reliefs.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Dumper Operator and joined in service on 13.02.1984. After completion of his probation period on 12.02.1985, his post was designated as EPGE (Shovel). At that point of time, he was issued with a charge sheet on the allegation that on 05.05.1986 some tyres were stolen from the store of the company, when the key of the store was with the petitioner-workman. The same was specifically denied by the petitioner and it was stated that he was never handed over with the keys of the store during the relevant period and he never remained in-charge of the store at any point of time. During the enquiry neither the list of documents nor the list of witnesses was supplied to the petitioner and, as such, there was non-compliance of the principles of natural justice in a domestic inquiry. But, thereafter, he has been terminated from service.

2.1 Challenging the order of termination, the petitioner approached the industrial forum by filing conciliation proceeding. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal in Clause-(d) of sub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication vide letter dated 11.11.1993 with following terms of reference:-

'Whether the action of the management of the IB vally area of SEC Ltd. in dismissing Sri Ramakanta Parija from company's service is legal and justified. If not to what the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?'

On reference being made, the same was registered as I.D. Case No.26 of 1997 (C) before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela and after due adjudication, the tribunal vide award dated 26.10.1999 held as follows:

'xxx So I find there was no prima facie case against the 2nd party and the domestic enquiry was not conducted properly adhering to the principles of natural justice. So his dismissal basing on this domestic enquiry is not legal and justified.'

The Presiding Officer also stated in the order that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages.

2.2 Aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.1999 passed by the tribunal, the opposite party preferred writ petition before this Court in OJC No.4054 of 2001 and this Court, vide order dated 19.02.2009, affirmed the order passed by the industrial tribunal, by holding that no impropriety and illegality can be said to have been committed by the tribunal so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

2.3 Nothing has been placed on record to show that challenging the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the opposite party preferred any appeal before the apex Court. In any case, pursuant to the order dated 19.02.2009 passed by this Court in OJC No.4054 of 2001 and considering the findings arrived at by the tribunal in the impugned award dated 26.10.1999 in ID Case No.26 of 1997, the Project Officer issued a memorandum of settlement, vide letter dated 21.05.2009, as per Rule-58 in Form-H, regarding reinstatement of the petitioner along with back wages. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.6,52,245.07 was deducted from the net amount of Rs.16,18,124.47 and an amount of Rs.9,65,879.40 was disbursed to the petitioner. As a consequence thereof, the order of the tribunal has not been complied with in full, as the benefit of notional promotion has not been given to the petitioner. Though the petitioner has been reinstated with full back wages, but his entitlement for consequential benefits have not been determined and paid to him. One N.K. Mohapatra, a similarly situated workman, though has been granted the consequential benefits, but the peti