JUDGMENT

Harsh Bunger, J. (Oral)

Petitioner-Balbir Singh (since deceased) had filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/modifying the award dated 26.08.2015 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (respondent No.1), to the extent whereby the full back wages from the date of demand notice was not granted to him.

A further writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought for seeking direction to respondent No.2 to pay the full back wages to the petitioner from the date of demand notice i.e. 30.05.2006 (Annexure P-2).

2. Briefly, the petitioner-Balbir Singh is stated to have joined as a Conductor on 05.01.1990 in the Haryana State Transport i.e. Haryana Roadways through Staff Selection Board, Haryana. The petitioner claims that he worked from 05.01.1990 to 28.09.1999 regularly without any break and was drawing salary @ Rs.4200/- per month. As per the petitioner, his work and conduct had remained good throughout during the tenure of his service. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 (The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sonepat, District Sonepat) gave a charge-sheet dated 08.06.1994 to him; wherein a domestic enquiry was held. However, the petitioner claimed that the Enquiry Officer never called him and neither the statement of any witness was recorded in the presence of the petitioner. It is claimed that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and even no opportunity was afforded to him to give his defence evidence. As per the petitioner's case, respondent No.2 terminated his services on 28.09.1999 on the basis of a false report of Enquiry Officer. Even the appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Transport Officer, Haryana, was also dismissed on 05.12.2005; whereupon, the petitioner served a demand notice dated 16.05.2006 (Annexure P-1), seeking his re-instatement with continuity of service with full back wages, which was followed by another demand notice dated 30.05.2006 (Annexure P-2); however, the said notice is stated to have not replied by respondent No.2.

3. It appears that thereafter, the dispute of the petitioner was referred to the Labour Court, Panipat, vide order dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner filed the claim petition before the learned Labour Court, claiming that he has been illegally terminated from the services and thus, he is entitled to be re-instated in service with all consequential benefits alongwith continuity of service with full back wages.

4. The afore-said claim petition of the petitioner was contested by respondent No.2-department by filing its reply. The learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues :-

"1. Whether the termination of services of workman Sh. Balbir Singh is legal and valid. If so, to which relief, the workman is entitled ? OPW.

2. Whether the enquiry as conducted against the workman was not fair and proper? OPW

3. Whether the claim petition is bad for delay and latches as alleged? OPM

4. Relief."

5. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court passed an order dated 14.08.2015 (Annexure P-9) holding that the enquiry proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law and the same were held to be a nullity. Subsequently, the learned Labour Court, passed an award dated 26.08.2015 (Annexure P-10) in favour of the petitioner, holding that the termination of services of the petitioner was