JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal J.
1. The petitioner’s services were terminated after an inquiry which was found to be totally flawed by the impugned award dated 27th September, 1993 by the Tribunal. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the principles of natural justice were violated in the inquiry and the inquiry officer was found biased in the manner in which he allowed the re-examination and disallowed the questions put by the petitioner. The manner of putting the question to the witnesses was also found flawed. The Tribunal accordingly in the operative portion held that
“Normally the petitioner would have been entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and all consequential benefits. In his statement on oath, the petitioner stated that he was entitled to be reinstated into service with full backwages and continuity in service. But at the same time, not a word was stated by the petitioner that he remained unemployed after termination of his services. It has also not been stated that the petitioner was ever interested in any alternative employment. Under these circumstances, I direct that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. However, he is not entitled to any backwages.”
2. The Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner would have been entitled to full back wages and continuity in service but the petitioner has not made the necessary averment. The petitioner, workman has challenged the award only to the extent it denied back wages to him. In my view while the Tribunal’s view cannot be faulted nevertheless considering the nature of findings recorded by the Tribunal on the conduct of the respondent and the flaws found in the procedure and the period of 10 years involved from the date of termination till the date of the award, it is appropriate that the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal only on the issue of back wages. I am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his claim of back wages. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to the limited extent of back wages. List the matter before the Tribunal on 1st September, 2003.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Sanat Kumar Dwivedi vs Dhar Jila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit and Others 2002 SCC (L&S) 94 that once an order of reinstatement is accepted by the employee, the subsequent claim was impermissible. In my the said judgment does not apply to the facts of the case. In the cited decision, the employee had accepted the order of his reinstatement without back wages. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that the dispute qua back wages was raised subsequently to the acceptance of the order of reinstatement. In the present case the impugned award while directing the reinstatement did not give back wages to the petitioner. Hence the principle of law laid down in the above judgment about the subsequent raising of the dispute for back wages does not, therefore, apply to the facts of the present case. The challenge in the writ petition was only to the denial of back wages denied simultaneously with the order of reinstatement.
4. The writ petition is allowed and the award dated 23rd September, 1993 is set aside to the limited extent that the impugned award denied back wages to the petitioner.
5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.