JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - Against a common cause of dismissal of a doctor from an industrial establishment, the workman and the employer, arc at issues in seven writ petitions before the High Court. Six writ petitions have been filed by the employer and one on behalf of the workman. Three writ petitions, two by the employer and one on behalf of the workman, challenge two awards arising out of adjudication proceedings, in an industrial dispute, when the doctor of the establishment saw an order of dismissal. The employer is the Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd ; it has two establishments one at Padrauna and the other at Kathkuiyan, both in eastern U. P. The workman is Dr. B. P. Mohindra, a doctor employed by the concern aforesaid. The three writ petitions, amongst the seven, have been heard together and are being considered by this Court by a common judgment. The other four writ petitions relate to matters consequential to the award on orders of the Labour Court computing monetary benefits which the workman may be entitled to in pursuance of the award t these four writ petitions have been considered together by another common judgment. 2. Now the, aforesaid, three writ petitions, two by the employer and one on behalf of the workman are being considered upon an issue of writ of certiorari by the Court, in this judgment. 3. In these cases the two impugned awards of the Labour Court were delivered in one case 20 years ago and the other 19 years ago. The three writ petitions have been pending since 18 years and a set of another four writ petitions since the last fifteen to seventeen years. The dispute is between the same employer and employee. The nexus of the dispute is the order of reference which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, as Adjudication Case No. 8 of 1971 (Central) in pursuance of Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was made by the State Government by its' order No. 2906 (Shra-Aa)/36-Shram (ka)-C.P. (GR),/68 dated 16 June 1971. The other reference was registered as Order No. 3147 (Shra-Aa)/36-Shram (ka)-C. P. 14 (OR)/ 69 dated 13th July 1971. 4. It is alleged by the employer that the employees had agitated against the workman, under adjudication, who served as a doctor at the establishments of the employer. The other reference was registered as Order No. 3147 (Shra-Aa)/36-Shram (ka)-C. P. 14 (OR)/ 69 dated 13th July 1971. 4. It is alleged by the employer that the employees had agitated against the workman, under adjudication, who served as a doctor at the establishments of the employer. The workman concerned i.e. Dr. B. P. Mohindra, it is claimed was asked by the employer not to come to the company's hospital and stay away from it. As claimed by the employer there was an agitation by the workman of the establishment against the doctor. As the doctor would not lay himself off from duties, his services were terminated. It is claimed that there was a domestic enquiry which went against the doctor and, thus, later he raised an industrial dispute. The industrial dispute was espoused by an union, the Rashtriya Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Padrauna. As conciliation proceedings failed a reference was made to the Labour Court, Gorakhpur as adjudication Case No. 8 of 1971. This adjudication related to the employer's establishment at Padrauna. Another reference was a matter of dispute in reference to the establishment at Katkhuiyan, registered as adjudication Case No. 37 of 1971. 5. In Addition to the main order of reference, several additional issues were also struck before the labour court at the request of the party concerned. In reference to these additional issues, on behalf of the employer, Mr. V.B. Singh, Advocate, appearing for him submitted that he would not be offering submission on the additional issues and confine his argument to the main reference. 6. This Court is taking up writ petition No. 2424 of 1974, first, in reference to the establishment at Padrauna, giving rise to Adjudication Case No. 8 of 1971. 7. The entire controversy arises out of a solitary incident charging the company doctor as being on the wrong side of the workmen. The incident appeared to have been sparked off when one Ram Bai was taken to the company infirmary for treatment and it was alleged that there was delay in giving him medical attention. Following allegations of delay in giving medical attention, the case of the employer is that the company doctor was asked not to attend the hospital for two days. As he would not abstain himself from duties as a doctor, the employer claims the doctor violated the Standing Order of the company and is liable for dismissal. Following allegations of delay in giving medical attention, the case of the employer is that the company doctor was asked not to attend the hospital for two days. As he would not abstain himself from duties as a doctor, the employer claims the doctor violated the Standing Order of the company and is liable for dismissal. A domestic enquiry was to judge the charge against the doctor. The proceedings of the domestic enquiry conducted during the late hours of the night. The domestic enquiry charged the doctor for misconduct followed by an order of dismissal. This matter engaged the Labour Court in adjudication. 8. On the reference for adjudication the Labour Court examined the fairness of the domestic enquiry and the conduct of the doctor and his employer. 9. After the Labour Court had examined the matter threadbare the charges could not be sustained. The allegation against the doctor on the delay in attending to an ailing workman, Ram Bai, failed. 10. The Labour Court examined the merits of the allegations. In a small town of Padrauna, on an incident almost 25 years ago, the Labour Court was satisfied that in a town where the only mode of transport is a rickshaw, the doctor upon a phone call made to him, arrived within 15 to 20 minutes. The Labour Court returned a finding that there was no delay in attending the patient in the circumstances, nor was medical assistance delayed. 11. The record reveals that all the witnesses were not produced. The workman who was made the centre of controvery at the domestic enquiry by a cross-examination was never produced before the Labour Court by the employer. He was the best evidence which could be available to the Labour Court. He was kept away as a witness in adjudication. The only presumption which runs against the employer is, that indeed if there was evidence available but the party which held the evidence would not be produce it gives rise to an irresistible presumption that this evidence, if produced would be against the employer. The law is clear on this aspect in drawing an adverse inference against a party which withholds evidence. This is prescribed under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act. The law is clear on this aspect in drawing an adverse inference against a party which withholds evidence. This is prescribed under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act. On the other hand the Labour Court has recorded a finding of malice at the hands of the General Manager of the Company, one Prem Bihar Misra, against the doctor. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the General Manager, aforesaid was harbouring personal mala fides against the doctor by asking him to abstain from duties for no cause and that also by trying to enforce a wrong order. This court on examining this issue is of the view that it is not the doctor who should have been charged but the person who gave the order in keeping him away from patients. The administrative order in requiring the doctor to keep away from his medical work had no basis. 12. The aspect considered by the Labour Court is that upon examining the facts and the evidence, it came to the conclusion that there was no agitation against the above doctor, as alleged by the employer. This allegation was malicious and had been stirred up against the doctor by the management. In the circumstances the Labour Court held that the question of any industrial unrest, the cause for which was the doctor, did not exist and, in effect, the story against him was cooked up. On an overall assessment, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that requiring the doctor to cease treating patients itself is an illegal order. In the circumstances the Labour Court held that the question of any industrial unrest, the cause for which was the doctor, did not exist and, in effect, the story against him was cooked up. On an overall assessment, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that requiring the doctor to cease treating patients itself is an illegal order. In this context the Labour Court observed in Paragraph 118 : " ;fn fefly esa tks izek.k gS mu ls ,slk vkHkkl gksrk gS fd MkWDVj eksfgUnz dh tujy eSustj ls de curh Fkh vkSj tujy eSustj vdkj.k gh mudk jsdkMZ [kjkc djus ij rqys gq, Fks vkSj blfy, "kM;U= :i esa og Jfed vkUnksyu dk >wBk gOok [kM+k djuk pkgrs Fks vkSj MkDVj eksfgUnz ds f[kykQ fefly cukdj mudk rcknyk djkus esa layXu Fks] rks ,slk eSyhlsl vkMZj [kkl rkSj ls tc fd mlesa dke cUn djus ds fy, vksn'k Fks] ;kuh MkDVjh bykt nks fnu cUn j[kus dk vkns'k Fkk] fdlh Hkh izdkj dkuwuh vkns'k ftls ekrgr dks ekuuk pkfg;s ugha dgk tk ldrkA MkDVj eksfgUnz ls Jfed dbZ dkj.kksa ls uk[kq'k Fks] ,slk ,DthfoV bZ&35 esa fn[kk;k gSA igyk vkjksi ;g gS fd mldh vuki luki nok ls dbZ etnwjksa dh gR;k gks x;hA nwljk ;g fd mudk vke etnwjksa ls nqO;Zogkj FkkA rhljk ;g fd tc jke cyh dh nq?kZVuk gqbZ rc ;g vLirky esa ekStwn ugha FksA pkSFkk ;g fd lwpuk feyus ij Hkh ;g 37 feuV nsj ls vk;sA ikWapoh ;g gS fd nsj ls vkus ij Hkh MkDVj lkgc fcuk bykt fd;s viuk cSx ysdj ykSVus yxs fd bykt ugha djksasxsA buesa ls fdlh Hkh fo"k; ij ?kjsyw tkap&vf/kdkfj;ksa us viuk dksbZ urhtk ugha fudkyk gS vkSj blfy, eq>s gh bu iz'uksa esa lcwr ds vk/kj ij ?kqluk gSA " 13. At one stage there was a general allegation also against the doctor that because of incorrect treatment a workman had died. At one stage there was a general allegation also against the doctor that because of incorrect treatment a workman had died. In answer to this allegation it would be best to reproduce what the Labour Court has put on record in negating this charge : " Jfedksa dh xyr bykt ls gR;k djus dk tgka rd iz'u gS rks ,d 'kCn Hkh fdlh Hkh xokg us bl fo"k; ij esjs lkeus ;k ?kjsyw tkap esa ugha dgk --- ----- ---- ---- --- --- -- -- ---- -- ----- ----- ;g vkjksi Li"Vr;k >wBk vksj cscqfu;kn yxk;k x;k FkkA blh izdkj nsj ls vkus dh ckr o ejht ds fcuk bykt ds pyus yxus dh vkjksi Hkh ,DthfoV bZ&35 esa mruk >wBk gSA " 14. From this alone it gives the impression to this Court, upon perusing the record of the domestic enquiry, that right from the beginning the employer's sole purpose was to create an atmosphere of bias without any basis of evidence available, and the question of producing it did not arise. 15. Regarding the allegation, on the incident at the time when the doctor was treating the workman Ram Bai, it has been exaggerated out of proportion. This workman was being attended to by the company doctor who was apparently concerned about the injured workman under his medical attention. The Labour Court has recorded that the doctor went out from the company infirmary to tell the crowd that it would be conducive to better treatment if the workman did not keep hovering around the hospital and it would be best that they leave the treatment of the patient to the doctor. In reference to this, the Labour Court has noticed the version of the employer's witness and recorded a finding which reads : " esjs lkeus bl fo"k; ij bZ0 MCY;w0 2 bZ0 MCY;w0 3 nksuksa us ,d gh ckr dgh gS fd tc MkWDVj eksfgUnz Hkhrj jke cyh dk bykt dj jgs Fks rks ckgj dqN yksx tek Fks vkSj MkWDVj eksfgUnz cgqr xqLls esa ckgj vkdj cksys vki yksx ;g 'kksj u epk;s D;ksafd bykt djus esa gtZ iM+rk gS vkSj mUgksaus dgk fd og rks 'kksj fcydqy epk ugha jgsA " 16. The other charge against the doctor that he came but went away without looking at the patient has been the subject matter of a comment by the Labour Court, to the effect, that no witness has made this proposition to substantiate the allegations. The Labour Court observes : " fdlh Hkh xokg us ;g dgus dk iz;Ru ugha fd;k gS fd MkWDVj lkgc ?kj esa ejht ds bykt ds fy, vk;s] ijUrq fcuk ejht dks ns[ks okil tkus yxsA ;g Hkh vkjksi izR;{k :i ls >wBk o cscqfu;kn FkkA " 17. In fact, the Labour Court has gone on to observe on the basis of the record before it, that the terms of employment of the Company doctor were such that he was engaged part time for a couple of hours and it was too much to accept that he would be available to the company for 24 hours. In this context the Labour Court observes : " fey esa dsoy <+kbZ ?k.Vs dk MkDVj jgsxk rks og 24 ?k.Vs ogkWa dSls feysxk\ mldh ftEesnkjh O;oLFkkidksa dh gS ftUgksaus ikVZ Vkbe MkDVj fu;qDr fd;s u fd Lo;a MkDVj dhA " 18. Finally concluding by elaborately noticing the evidence before it, the Labour Court summed up the evidence, to the effect, that the allegation of ill treatment of a patient attributed to the company doctor was baseless and not one amongst the employer's witnesses gave clear evidence on this allegation. 19. The Labour Court has then gone into the aspect why the allegations were made against the company doctor and in no uncertain terms has charged the employer with maliciously intending to spoil the record of the company doctor and that the General Manager Sri Prem Bihar Misra had made baseless allegations for reasons of personal mala fides for the purpose of personally harming the doctor. The Labour Court assessed the allegations could not be substantiated and the charges were falsely framed. 20. On the manner in which the proceedings took place in adjudication, the Labour Court has also returned a finding, to the effect, that at every given stage the employer obstructed the proceeding for the sole purpose of delaying it. The employer has been charged with misuse of the process of the law. 20. On the manner in which the proceedings took place in adjudication, the Labour Court has also returned a finding, to the effect, that at every given stage the employer obstructed the proceeding for the sole purpose of delaying it. The employer has been charged with misuse of the process of the law. The observations of the Labour Court on this aspect reads : " lsok;kstd dsl esa vM+sxsa ckth ij vM+xsckth yxk;s tk jgs Fks vkSj lkQ rkSj ls eSaus vius ml vkns'k esa ;gh fy[kk gS fd fel ;wt vkQ izksfll vkWQ ykW dks jksdus ds fy, ml vkns'k dk nsuk vko';d gks x;kA " 21. The observations w'as made in reference to the conduct of the proceedings during the course of adjudication. The Labour Court has commented on the obstructive attitude of the employer. These are matters of record. 22. The question which now arises is on what the High Court should do with the state of the record as is before it in the present writ petition and in the circumstances noticed by this court. This court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to use a writ of certiorari to certify that the Labour Court has fallen into an error in adjudicating the matter before it as there is no error discernible to the court so as to interfere with the award. Even if this court was to take another view on the same set of circumstances, would not be an occasion to frustrate the award. But in reference to the present set of facts and circumstances on record, this Court is satisfied that the Labour Court has made no error illegality nor any manifest error so that this court may intervene by a writ of certiorari. The award stands and is confirmed. 23. Writ petition No. 2425 of 1974 M/s. Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd. v. Dr. B.P. Mohindra challenges the award of Labour Court, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case No. 37 of 1971 in the matter of an industrial dispute between Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd., and its workman Dr. B.P. Mohindra it's Medical Officer also at Kathkuiyan. The concern, aforesaid M/s. Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd. has two factories which manufacture crystal sugar. One unit is at Padrauna and the other at Kathkuiyan. in reference to the unit at Padrauna, an establishment where the services of Dr. B.P. Mohindra it's Medical Officer also at Kathkuiyan. The concern, aforesaid M/s. Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd. has two factories which manufacture crystal sugar. One unit is at Padrauna and the other at Kathkuiyan. in reference to the unit at Padrauna, an establishment where the services of Dr. B.P. Mohindra were also terminated, the adjudication case was No. 8 of 1971. As Dr. B. P. Mohindra was employed at both the factories as a Medical Officer, against an order of termination ending his employment at Kathkuiyan the adjudication case was registered as No. was 37 of 1971 ; it is the subject matter of the present writ petition. 24. It is accepted by learned counsel for the parties that as a matter of record the order of termination of Dr. B. P. Mohindra from the Kathkuiyan factory is consequential to the order of termination in reference to the Padrauna factory. It is also accepted that the decision in the matter relating to the award in Adjudication Case No. 8 of 1971, impugned in Writ petition No. 2424 of 1974 ; Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd. v. Dr. B. P. Mohindra and others, will also govern the decision in this case. 25. In reference to this, learned counsel for the parties have drawn the attention of the court to the following observation on record in the award of Adjudication Case No. 37 of 1971, dated 28-6-1972, challenged in the present writ petition. B. P. Mohindra and others, will also govern the decision in this case. 25. In reference to this, learned counsel for the parties have drawn the attention of the court to the following observation on record in the award of Adjudication Case No. 37 of 1971, dated 28-6-1972, challenged in the present writ petition. The relevant paragraph read : " iM+jkSuk dh ukSdjh ls ;g vkns'k fnukad 12&1&1968 ( ,DthfoV bZ&18 ) ls fMlfel dj fn;s x;sA mlds fo:) bUgksaus fnokuh esa bUtsD'ku dk nkok 25&9&1968 dks fd;k tks vUr esa fonM~k fd;k x;k bl chp 28&11&1968 dks bUgsa vkns'k ( bDthfoV bZ&15 ) fnukad 25&11&1968 ;k ,DthfoV bZ&17 fnukad 28&11&1968 ls dBdqb;kWa dh ukSdjh ls Hkh fudky fn;k x;kA---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- -------- ---- ---- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ---- ---- ,d ekSdk lQkbZ dk iM+jkSuk dh ukSdjh ds fy, fn;k vkSj mldk vyx ls vkns'k gqvkA vc nwljh ukSdjh ls fudkyus ds fy, nwljk ekSdk fn;k tkuk vko';d FkkA Lohd`r :i ls bl ukSdjh ds fy, vyx ls dksbZ ekSdk ugha fn;k vkSj u dksbZ ?kjsyw tkWap gqbZA bl igyw ls Hkh bl ekeys dks ns[ks rks bl izdkj fudkyk tkuk loZFkk voS/k vkSj vuqfpr gh jgrk gSA " 26. Thus, it is clear, from the record, that but for the order of the termination at the establishment at Padrauna, a similar order would not have visited Dr. B. P. Mohindra at Kathkuiyan. 27. Thus, for the same reasons as given in the judgment, aforesaid, in writ petition No. 2424 of 1974 on Adjudication Case No. 8 of 1971, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur in Adjudication Case No. 37 of 1971, and this award also stands confirmed. 28. Writ petition No. 2523 of 1974 ; Rashtriya Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh and others v. The State of U. P. and others, is on behalf of the workman, Dr. B. P. Mohindra, and filed by the Rashtriya Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh, the labour Union which espoused the cause of the workman, aforesaid, in the respective adjudication cases in the matter of an industrial dispute between the concern, Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd., and its' workman Dr. B. P. Mohindra. 29. B. P. Mohindra, and filed by the Rashtriya Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh, the labour Union which espoused the cause of the workman, aforesaid, in the respective adjudication cases in the matter of an industrial dispute between the concern, Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd., and its' workman Dr. B. P. Mohindra. 29. The grievance in the present writ petition is that the Labour Court, Gorakhpur has upheld the contention on behalf of the workman and rejected the case of the employer in adjudication cases No. 8 of 1971 and Adjudication Case No. 37 of 1971 and has held that the dismissal of the workman from the establishments at Padrauna and Kathkuiyan is illegal and mala fide and consequently ordered the reinstatement of the workman, but to deny the workman full back wages during a certain period between the order of dismissal and the enforceability of the award, is illegal. The award is dated, in both cases, 24 December 1973 and the order of dismissal, in reference, to the Padrauna establishment is dated November 1967 and the Kathkuiyan establishment, 28 November, 1968. 30. The contention on behalf of the workman, aforesaid, is that once a Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the action of the employer is illegal and reinstatement is ordered, then full back wages as a relief must follow an order of reinstatement under an award. On this proposition no case need be cited as the contention is correct and academically in the present case also there ought to have been an order modifying the ad interim awards granted earlier for the payment of half and three fourth wages, in reference to the context, to the workman. The Labour Court has retained its ad interim directions for the payment of wages following reinstatement on the enforceability of the award. 31. Regard being had to the special facts and circumstances of the cases, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that as the workman concerned was a doctor, the possibility cannot be ruled out that during the period of his unemployment, that is from the date of dismissal until the enforcement of the award, the workman may have earned with more time available during unemployment, from his private practice. In this regard, paragraph 16 from the award in Adjudication Case No. 37 of 1971 is relevant. In this regard, paragraph 16 from the award in Adjudication Case No. 37 of 1971 is relevant. It is reads : " {kfriwfrZ ds ckjs esa ;g crkuk vko';d gS fd Jfed us viuh vthZ fnukad 11&4&72 esa viuh iszfDVl ls dqN vkenuh Lohdkj fd;k gSA blh chp esa mUgksaus vkSj ukSdfj;ka ryk'k djuk vkSj mlesa vlQyrk feyuk fn[kk;k gSA bl vthZ ds lkFk blds rF;ksa dh iqf"V esa 'kiFk&i= yxk;k FkkA vr% vius c;ku esa ukSdjh ryk'k djus ds ckjs es u dgus ij Hkh ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd bl fo"k; ij Jfed dk dksbZ lcwr ugha gS blds foijhr lsok;kstdksa dh vksj ls bl fo"k; ij dksbZ izek.k ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd Jfed dh vthZ gh [kkfjt gks x;h vkSj lsok;kstdksa ls tokc ekaxk gh ugha x;kA bl dkj.k tokc u nsus ls muds fo:) dksbZ izhtEilu rks ugha gks ldrk] ijUrq fQj Hkh fefly ij mudh vkSj ls bl fo"k; ij dksbZ lcwr Hkh ugha vk tkrkA oSls Hkh Jfed ukSdjh ds nkSjku Hkh izkbosV izsfDVl djrs FksA ukSdjh NwVus ij mlds fy, dqN vf/kd le; feyk gksxkA vthZ fnukad 11&4&72 esa 68&69 vkSj 60&70 dks izsfDVl esa 500&600 :i;k lky o`f) fn[kk;h gSA fQj ?kVus dkj.k Hkh fn;k gS fd vkSj MkDVj vk x;s bR;kfnA bu dqy rF;ksa dks /;ku j[krs gq;s esa ;g fu.kZ; djrk gwWa fd Jfed dks {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa mudh ru[okg vkSj eagxkbZ dk 28&11&68 ls 31&3&70 rd vk/kk vkSj mlds ckn bl vkns'k dh foKkfIr dh rkjh[k rd rhu pkSFkkbZ lsok;kstd bUgsa nsaxsA vkSj foKfIr dh rkjh[k ls iwjh ru[okg eWagxkbZ vkSj nhxj ,ykmUl vkSj cksul bR;kfn Hkh nsaxsA " 32. Thus, this Court 'does not repel the contention on behalf of the workman that he is entitled to full back wages once the award reinstating the workman is upheld. In the normal course full back wages should follow an order of reinstatement. Regard being had to the circumstances peculiar to this case that the workman is a doctor, it would not be appropriate for this Court in a writ of certiorari to have a second opinion on the assessment of the Labour Court, when the latter's view may neither be incorrect nor illegal. If another `view is possible, in circumstances before Court in the present cases, the High Court ought not to interfere if there be no illegality in the order of a quasi-judicial tribunal. If another `view is possible, in circumstances before Court in the present cases, the High Court ought not to interfere if there be no illegality in the order of a quasi-judicial tribunal. Thus, this Court is not correcting the reliefs awarded under the award on the contention raised by the Rashtriya Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh, on behalf of the workman, Dr. B. P. Mohindra. 33. Now another aspect, as these writ petitions have been pending at the High Court for the last 18 years, reinstatement cannot go beyond the age of superannuation. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that at the concern know as the Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd., the staff, whether managerial or workers, retire at the age of 60 years. This implies that any computation of arrears of salary or monitory benefits due to the workman will be up to the age of 60 years. The enforcement of the award will be accordingly. Back wages to the workman concerned, in terms of the two awards, will be when Dr. B. P. Mohindra attained the age of 60 years, but will be payable as under the award with 12% simple interest. 34. The three writ petitions are, thus, decided. Writ petition Nos. 2424 of 1974 and 2425 of 1974 are dismissed with costs, each separately. On writ petition No. 2523 of 1974 filed by the Rashtriya Chini Mill Mazdoor Sangh, on behalf of the workman, the Court is not correcting the relief clause in the award. This writ petition is, thus,"consigned to" the record without any order on costs.