Amareshwar Sahay, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, i.e. the concerned workman has filed this writ petition challenging that portion of the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, dated 15 May 2001, whereby, the Industrial Tribunal after holding the dismissal of the concerned workman to be not justified and directed for his reinstatement but did not allow the privilege of back wages. In other words (the refusal of the Industrial Tribunal to award back wages in under challenge in this writ application. In view of the limited question involved in this writ application, it is not necessary to state in detail the facts of the case. Suffice is to say that the petitioner, who was dismissed from the employment of the Central Coalfields Limited after domestic enquiry, has been ordered to be reinstated in service by the Industrial Tribunal, holding that the petitioner was not found guilty of misconduct and, consequently, his order of termination was set aside.
(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has not assigned any reason for refusal to award back wages to the petitioner. According to him, if the termination of a workman is held to be illegal and consequently such termination from service is set aside then in that case the award of back wages is consequential and it has to be made therefore, the Industrial Tribunal ought to have awarded consequential relief of full back wages to the petitioner. In support of such submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of "Manorma Verma (Smt) v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in : (1994) Supp (3), SCC, 671", "Union of India and Ors. v. Ramchander and Anr. reported in (2005) 9 SCC 365", "General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh reported in : (2005)5 SCC 591, "Allahabad Jal Sansthan -v. Daya shankar Rai and Anr. reported in : (2005) 5 SCC 124", U.P.SRTC Ltd. v. Sarada Prasad Misra and Anr. reported in : (2006) 4 SCC 733" and in the case of "Mahendra Harizan v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in, 2006(2) JLJR, 591;