JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. By way of instant writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, an award dated 18.12.2000 (Annexure P-11), is assailed, vide which, the learned Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the respondent-workman, thereby holding him entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service, and 50% back wages, along with other consequential benefits, from the date of demand notice, i.e. 12.01.1997, till reinstatement

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges were duly proved against the respondent-workman, and the order of termination was passed, while strictly adhering to the principles of natural justice. He further submits that considering the gravity of charges that the respondent-workman attempted to withdraw the amount by forging the documents, besides other charges, only termination from service can be said to be a proportionate punishment. However, the learned Industrial Tribunal, while extending misplaced sympathy, set aside the termination order, thereby holding the workman entitled for reinstatement, and other consequential benefits.

3. While refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits the Management miserably failed to point out any perversity in the impugned award, which could warrant interference. However, she submits that, unfortunately, the workman has passed away, therefore, the relief as regards reinstatement has become redundant. Consequently, the instant writ petition survives only qua the relief of back wages, as awarded by the learned Industrial Tribunal. She fairly submits that more than two decades have rolled by since the passing of the impugned award, therefore, it would be expedient if the adequate lump sum compensation is granted to the survivors of the workman, by modifying the impugned award.

4. This Court has heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the contesting parties and has carefully examined the record.

5. Before embarking upon the matter in issue and scrutinizing the legality of the impugned award, a brief narration of the facts shall be imperative.

6. The deceased-workman was appointed as a Clerk with the petitioner-Management in the month of May, 1981. However, on account of allegations of irregularities, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 13.01.1996, and 30.03.1996 (Annexures P-1 and P-2), to which, he submitted a reply dated 10.02.1996. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the petitioner-Management, to conduct an enquiry into the allegations. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, holding the workman guilty of the charges framed against him. Eventually, his services were terminated, vide order dated 24.12.1996. Aggrieved, the workman raised an industrial dispute, by filing a claim statement, primarily, on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in a just and fair manner, as charge-sheet was not associated with the list of witnesses, list of documents and statement of allegations. Accordingly, the industrial dispute was referred to the learned Industrial Tribunal, for adjudication. Proceeding with the matter, the learned Industrial Tribunal framed the issues, and the issue, i.e. “whether the management has conducted just and proper domestic enquiry against the workman? If not, to what effect”, was treated as a preliminary issue, vide order dated 30.03.1999, which stood decided in favour of the workman, on the ground that the petitioner-Management did not hold the enquiry in a fair and proper manner. Whereafter, the petitioner-Management was afforded opportunity to prove the charges by leading evidence. Ultimately, the reference, as demonstrated above, was answered against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent-workman. That is how, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. Upon consideration of the matter in issue and perusal of the impugned award, what this Court could comprehend, is