Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rajiv Ran -jan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE Petitioner prays for quashing a portion of the Award dated 19.5.1995 (Annexure -1) passed by the Respondent No. 1.(Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City) in reference case No. 29 of 1988 by which full back wages and other consequential benefits have been awarded. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the other portion of the award i.e. the award of reinstatement is not being challenged as the petitioner has already been reinstated in service. The only portion, with which they are aggrieved, is the order of full back wages and other consequential benefits. It is stated that the Respondent No. 2 (i.e. the concerned workman, Kedar Mahato) was a habitual absentee. He was absent for 75 days during the months of July to September, 1986 and again from 12.2.1987 to 17.04.1987. The absence was committed without prior permission and in an unauthorized manner. Consequently his name was struck off from the rolls of the company in terms of Clause 20 (xi) of the Certified Standing Orders. The matter led to a reference for purposes of adjudicating as to whether the action of the management was justified and as to whether he was entitled to reinstatement in service or/any other relief. The Labour Court ultimately came to a finding that the action, in terminating the services, was not proper and therefore, passed an Award holding that the Respondent No. 2 was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner states and submits that true to their statements recorded at paragraph 11 of the Writ Application, they have already reinstated the Respondent No. 2 in service. However, in the same paragraph the Petitioner has stated that this reinstatement was without prejudice to its right to challenge the other part of the award by which full back wages and other consequential benefits have been awarded. In the counter -affidavit, various points have been raised on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and at paragraph 20, he has stated that the Chief Personnel Manager (Works) by order dated 6/7.3.1996 did allow reinstatement subject to the decision of this case but while taking him back in service, he was shown as a new appointee. However, such statement does not find corroboration upon perusal of Annexure -A which inter alia reads as follows : "In deference to the Labour Court's Award dated 19.5.96 (pronounced on 14.8.96) passed in Reference Case No. 29/88 Sri Kedar Mahato, Ex -Khalasi. Staff No. 487604 of Hot Strip Mill (Mech. Maint), BSL, is hereby re -instated without back wages and consequential benefits to the same post on the same scale of pay, which was held by him as on 12.2.87 (i.e. the date from which his name was struck off from the rolls of the Company by order No. Pers/W/Mills/ COS/80/87 -838 dated 17.4.87) and he is allowed to join his duty with immediate effect," (underlining by the Court).;