With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

1 Only issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court having held that the domestic enquiry leading to termination of the petitioner being vitiated was justified in only giving compensation instead of directing for reinstatement with back wages.

2. Appointed in 1973 in Eklehra Colliery the petitioner was promoted as Trammer and as Clipman-IV. That while posted at Gajandoh Colliery, petitioner was proceeded against with the issuance of charge sheet. The charges levelled against him were that of theft, fraud, dishonesty with employers business and property, culminating in order of dismissal which led the petitioner raise an industrial dispute which being not resolved in conciliation resulted in reference to CGIT for adjudication as to ‘whether the action of the management of Gajandoh Mine of Western Coal Fields Limited in dismissing the services of Shri Faiyazuddin clipman w.e.f. 11.11.1992 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”

3. CGIT by order dated 11.8.2014 set aside the domestic enquiry on the finding that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner workman. The respondent management was called upon to prove the misconduct. The management chose to rely upon the evidence led at the time of consideration of the preliminary issue regarding the domestic enquiry. The CGIT found that since the domestic enquiry got vitiated and that misconduct having not been proved held the termination of workman bad. Though it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the CGIT did not consider the evidence on record in right perspective and accepted the evidence of the workman who did not present himself for cross-examination, the fact however remains that the respondent management did not challenge the Award and allowed the same and the findings therein to attain finality. As would give any wings to the contentions in present petition as to correctness of the findings regarding vitiating of the domestic enquiry and the finding regarding misconduct.

4. What remains now is the issue whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity in service. Be it noted that during pendency of proceedings before CGIT the workman expired and his legal representatives are brought on record by order dated 5.10.2010. Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, provides for --

“25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. -- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until --

(a) the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.”

As regard to the claim by the petitioner that his termination having been found to be in violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was entitled for reinstatement rather than a compensation, reference can be had of decision in Hindustan Tin Works v. Employees [(1979)2 SCC 80], their Lordships were pleased to hold --

“9. … The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to the work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously depr