- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for both parties.
(2.) The controversy in the present writ petition is very limited. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order dated 17.7.2009 on an application made by the respondent-workman under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947 by which the authority has allowed the application of the respondent-workman directing the petitioner Bank to pay to the applicant his dues taking into account notional increments during the period of 31.8.1984 to 10.7.1997 on which date he was reinstated into service along with the interest also.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the operative part of the award dated 18.3.1997. Reference is to be made to paragraphs no.6 & 7 of the award, which is quoted here-in-below:- "Taking into consideration all these factors, I am inclined to agree with the authorized representative of the concerned workman that punishment by way of discharge ought not to have been inflicted. Instead it will be deemed to have sufficiently punished if he is not allowed the wages from the date of discharge. In this way he is reinstated in service but without back wages. Accordingly my award is that punishment by way of discharge is not justified and he should be reinstated in service without back wages. However, the period from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement will be counted for the purposes of retiral benefits.";