- (1.) IN keeping with the direction given on the last occasion, the records of Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad in Reference No. 91 of 1993 have been made available. From the said records it appears that some evidence was led on behalf of the workmen -respondents. It also appears that apart from taking a point of limitation, the appellant did not choose to press the other points, said to have been taken in their written statement before the learned Tribunal. Be that as it may, as will appear from the award of the learned Tribunal which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge, eight other similarly situated employees were given the benefit of reinstatement with full back wages by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Patna upon holding that the termination of their services was made without giving any reason. The learned Tribunal, in the instant case, upon taking note of the said decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Patna, and upon holding that the delay in making of the reference was not fatal, came to a finding that the respondents -workmen were also entitled to be reinstated with back wages but not from the date of termination of their service but from the date of reference i.e. 23rd August, 1993.
(2.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, submissions, other than those relating to limitation, were attempted to be made on behalf of the appellant -petitioner but the learned Single Judge disallowed the same upon holding that since such submissions had not been made before the learned Tribunal, the Management was no longer entitled to raise the same while challenging the award. The learned Single Judge thereupon dismissed the writ application upholding the award as passed by the learned Tribunal. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the learned Single Judge.
(3.) MR . Pradip Modi, appearing in support of the appeal, tried to impress upon us that the reference had been made after a long delay of 13 years and during the said period it must be deemed that the right, if any, of the workmen stood extinguished as was sought to be explained by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of, India and Ors., . Mr. Modi also sought to urge that the requirement of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been complied with by the workmen. Mr. Modi urged that the Supreme Court has also held that in all cases of violation of Section 25 -F of the said Act, reinstatement was not to be directed as a matter of course but would depend upon the facts of each case.;