S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, A.C.J - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated November 20, 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 818 of 2000 (R), whereby and whereunder, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant, on the ground that the appellant had already accepted the order of reappointment without even a demur and thereby the Court refused to interfere with the impugned award.
(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the appellant was appointed on May 28, 1979 as Fitter at Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. He remained absent from duty without prior permission for more than fifteen days. The management of Bokaro Steel Plant while held that he had abandoned the service, removed his name from the roll of the Company w.e.f. October 1, 1980 by an order dated December 15/16, 1980 under clause 20(XI) of the Standing Orders without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, at the instance of the Union i.e. Bokaro Karmchari Panchayat, Bokaro Steel City, the Government of Bihar vide Notification No. 4/D2- 14069/93 L, E & T-126 dated January 24, 1994, referred the following dispute for adjudication. "Whether the termination of service of Sri N.K. Singh, Fitter, Staff No. 420935, T.P.P. and T.B.S. (501), Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City is proper? If not, what relief Sri Singh is entitled to?"
(3.) The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, on hearing the parties and appreciation of evidence led by the parties, by its award dated July 29, 1979, held the order of termination dated December 15/16, 1980 as illegal and nullity having passed in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. He further held the order of termination as penal, in nature, as also harsh and excessive. The Reference Case No.17/94 was answered in favour of workman N.K. Singh (appellant) and it was ordered to reappoint him but without any back wages and promotion nor any other consequential benefit was granted as the Presiding Officer held the appellant negligent towards his duty.;