SATYA BRATA SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ appeal raises a question of some importance. The petitioner was a workman in respondent No. 2-Department. On the alleged ground that the appellant submitted a bogus certificate as regards his work experience in the office of the Block Development Officer, his services were terminated by order dated April 21, 1994 without any notice or opportunity of hearing having been granted to him. The appellant raised an industrial dispute before the industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal on considering the evidence in relation to the preliminary issue held that the order of termination is bad in law as prior thereto no enquiry has been conducted. The Tribunal further held that despite opportunity having been granted to respondent No. 2-Department, they did not adduce any evidence before the tribunal. Despite holding so, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the respondent no. 2-Department for holding a fresh enquiry. ( 2 ) QUESTIONING the said award, the appellant herein filed writ petition. The learned single Judge on hearing the counsel for the parties held that such power does not inhere in the Tribunal. He, however, directed:"in that view of the matter, the impugned award of the Tribunal, insofar as it directs hearing and further enquiry by the management cannot be justified. In this context be it noted that though the petitioner was terminated on April 21, 1984 he approached the Tribunal only in 1987. Therefore, he should be denied any relief of back wages during that period. Further, pursuant to the award of the Tribunal dated january 17, 1990, the management issued two notices on July 7, 1990 and on July 27, 1990 followed by another reminder on august 8, 1990. After receiving the notice dated August 8, 1990, the petitioner submitted a representation on August 22, 1990 denying the charge. His specific case is that he was appointed to the post without obtaining any experience certificate. As noticed earlier there is a dispute whether the petitioner produced service certificate or the said idea was picked from the letter of the employment Officer dated June 9, 1983. This matter has to be enquired into, if so advised. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. He shall be entitled to claim back wages from January 1, 1988 till July 7, 1990. This matter has to be enquired into, if so advised. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. He shall be entitled to claim back wages from January 1, 1988 till July 7, 1990. For the period from July 7, 1990 till today, I deem it proper to restrict the back wages to one-fourth. However, the petitioner shall be treated as continuing in service. The second respondent, if so advised, shall be at liberty to follow the industrial Disputes Rules and conduct enquiry into the allegation, which was the basis for the termination order". ( 3 ) SRI M. Panduranga Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned single Judge having held the termination order is bad and having directed reinstatement of the appellant with back wage for a particular period, ought not to have made an observation in the last sentence of the order that respondent No. 2-Department, if so advised, shall be at liberty to follow the industrial Disputes Rules and conduct enquiry into the allegation, which was the basis for the termination order, for it is not in accordance with law. ( 4 ) WE agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned single Judge considered the scope and ambit of section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and held that the respondent failed/neglected to adduce evidence, though opportunity to adduce evidence was given by the Tribunal, and as a result whereof, the order of termination of service of the appellant was held to be bad, and accordingly it was set aside. The learned single Judge having held so, ought not t have committed the error of directing fresh enquiry in the matter. ( 5 ) IN the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the last sentence in the judgment of the learned single Judge which directed holding of fresh enquiry, needs to be set aside, and it is accordingly set aside. ( 6 ) THE writ appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No costs.