H. K. RATHOD, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Nirav Chokshi with Mr. Prashant Desai, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H. N. Sompura, learned appearing on behalf of the respondent. ( 2 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner - Surat Municipal Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Surat in Reference [it] No. 54/88 dated 21/09/1993. The Industrial Tribunal, Surat has set aside the punishment order dated 18th April, 1987 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Surat imposing punishment of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect and the Tribunal has directed to pay difference and arrears of salary on account of setting aside the punishment order in question to the respondent workman within period of one month from the date of publication of the award. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Nirav Chokshi appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the respondent workman was working as Head Inspector in the Water Tax Department of the petitioner Corporation. On 23rd January, 1979 the respondent was required to do the out door duty in the Ward for disposal of the applications and thereafter in the afternoon the petitioner used to work in the office. On that very date, at about 5. 00 p. m. one Iqbal Musabhai Patel came along with one Viraf Barjor Darwala and inquired about the inductment of Shaikh Shakur Gafur as tenant. He was asked to bring the papers from the Water Department and thereafter the respondent put his signature put on the letter dated 20-10-1977 as if it is signed on 23-1-1979 and he asked for some amount from said Iqbalbhai and at that time the respondent was caught red handed by PSI Shri B. M. Jadeja of ACB while taking the bribe of Rs. 25. 00 on the table itself. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the said incident, chargesheet was issued to the respondent on 2 1/06/1979 and thereafter inquiry was held against the respondent. The State Government had asked the Corporation to initiate departmental inquiry instead of filing criminal case against the respondent. Therefore, inquiry was initiated against the respondent under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. The State Government had asked the Corporation to initiate departmental inquiry instead of filing criminal case against the respondent. Therefore, inquiry was initiated against the respondent under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. The P. S. I. , ACB made report to the Police Inspector, ACB, Surat and ultimately the matter was reported to the Assistant Director, ACB, Baroda and the ACB Department asked the petitioner to initiate departmental inquiry by its letter dated 27/02/1979. The respondent workman has filed reply to the show cause notice dated 21st June, 1979 by letter dated 3 1/07/1979 and thereafter regular inquiry was held against the respondent. The witnesses were examined and also cross examined by the respondent and ultimately the inquiry officer made report dated 2/09/1985 and after considering the said report, disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of withholding five increments with future effect on the respondent. ( 5 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Nirav Chokshi appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has committed error in coming to the conclusion that no reasonable opportunity was given to the respondent workman and inquiry report is also baseless and contrary to the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has not taken care to consider the documents which were produced by the petitioner before the tribunal. He submitted that all the formalities have been completed by the petitioner and therefore the tribunal has committed error in setting aside the punishment order. He also submitted that in such a serious case, punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect cannot be considered to be harsh and unjustified. Therefore, interference by the Tribunal is uncalled for and the Industrial Tribunal has committed error in setting aside the punishment order. ( 6 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Sompura appearing on behalf of the respondent has supported the award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the chargesheet which has been issued by the petitioner to the respondent on 21st June, 1979 wherein without proving the allegations against the respondent workman straightaway explanation was called for from the respondent to the effect that as to why his services should not be terminated or why he should not be dismissed from service for committing misconduct in question. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly appreciated the language used in the chargesheet which shows predetermination on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly appreciated the language used in the chargesheet which shows predetermination on the part of the petitioner. He also submitted that along with chargesheet whatever records have been relied upon by the petitioner not supplied said documents to the workman. He also submitted that no details have been given by the petitioner along with the chargesheet that how many witnesses will be examined by the petitioner Corporation against the respondent. He also submitted that finding report itself is baseless and perverse as no reason has been given by the inquiry officer. He also submitted that no discussion is there which proved the misconduct against the respondent. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly appreciated all the documents and come to right conclusion to set aside the punishment order which was contrary to the principles of natural justice. ( 7 ) I have considered submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. The petitioner Corporation has produced chargesheet at Annexure-A page. 12. In the chargesheet, allegations were made that he has committed misconduct to take bribe of Rs. 25. 00 on 23/01/1979. But in the chargesheet two facts are very important which itself go against the principles of natural justice. In the chargesheet itself the petitioner Corporation has called for an explanation from the respondent as if the misconduct is already proved at the stage of chargesheet. The petitioner Corporation has called upon the respondent workman to reply against the chargesheet dated 21/06/1979 that why he should not be dismissed from service for misconduct committed on 23rd January, 1979. Normally in disciplinary proceedings, there must be some report or complaint against the delinquent workman. Such report may be a result of preliminary inquiry held by the employer or if any direct complaint or report submitted by the higher officer against the workman. This being a base to issue chargesheet or memo by the employer. On the basis of the report received by the employer either at the end of the preliminary inquiry or any complaint or any report by any person, the employer shall have to examine the future course of action whether in light of the report, is there any necessity to issue chargesheet to the workman or not? And after taking such decision, the employer will issue chargesheet to the concerned workman. And after taking such decision, the employer will issue chargesheet to the concerned workman. In the chargesheet, the matter still open and it was at the stage of allegation only. There should be no any predetermination by the employer that whatever report is received by the employer against the workman, is considered to be proved. But for that purpose, a detailed inquiry is necessary. Before the detailed inquiry, it is a duty of the employer to have some explanation from the workman in respect of the allegations made in the report. Therefore the chargesheet bears a specific limited purpose to have answer or explanation from the workman whether he has committed the misconduct in question or not ? Therefore, after receiving the report against the workman, the employer is issuing the chargesheet to have explanation or answer from the workman in respect of the allegation or misconduct alleged in the chargesheet. After receiving the reply or any answer from the workman, then the employer shall have to consider that whether reply is satisfactory or not and further a detailed inquiry is necessary or not ? If the employer is satisfied with the answer received from the workman, then the employer may not hold a detailed departmental inquiry against the workman. But if the employer is not satisfied with the reply or answer from the workman, then the employer has to take decision whether detailed inquiry is necessary or not. In such situation, the employer can decide to hold a detailed departmental inquiry against the workman. In the facts of the present case, without holding the departmental inquiry and without receiving any explanation from the workman on the basis of the preliminary inquiry, a report from the Police Sub Inspector, ACB has been treated as an evidence itself against the workman who has committed the misconduct of taking bribe of Rs. 25. 00 on 23/01/1979. On that basis, the chargesheet was served on the respondent workman and chargesheet itself, it was indicated that misconduct is proved and the workman has to reply only about punishment, meaning thereby, the employer has already decided and come to the conclusion that misconduct committed by the workman on 23/01/1979 is already proved on the basis of the report of the Police Sub Inspector, ACB, Surat and therefore, explanation was called for from the workman about punishment. This itself is contrary to the principles of natural justice. However, the stage of replying against the punishment still not come and prior to that, without giving any opportunity to the workman, the petitioner Surat Municipal Corporation has decided and come to the conclusion that misconduct is found to be proved against the workman. This action itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to the workman against the alleged misconduct dated 2 3/01/1979 as mentioned in report of PSI, Surat. This chargesheet was issued by the Municipal Commissioner who is the competent authority under the Service Rules. Therefore, on this ground itself, the chargesheet is contrary to the principles of natural justice because till the date of issuing the chargesheet on 21/06/1979, prior to that, against the alleged misconduct, no reasonable opportunity was given to the workman and no explanation from the workman was called for by the Corporation and the petitioner straightaway come to the conclusion that misconduct committed on 2 3/01/1979 is proved and his explanation was called for against punishment. This procedure adopted by the Surat Municipal Corporation is absolutely contrary to the principles of natural justice. ( 8 ) THE second glaring aspect in the chargesheet dated 21/06/1979 is that along with chargesheet, all the relevant papers though it was relied upon by the Corporation but the same was not supplied to the workman. On the contrary, it was made clear that relevant papers can be inspected by the workman in the office of the Inspection Office and if he requires any document, then he can copy out such document. This is also contrary to the principles of natural justice and the same amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity because it was the duty of the Surat Municipal Corporation or the competent authority to supply all the materials relied upon at the time of issuing the chargesheet to the respondent workman. Undisputedly such documents were not supplied along with chargesheet and therefore, according to my opinion, this is also contrary to the principles of natural justice. The employer cannot insist upon the workman that he should have to inspect certain documents or to have copy out the same from the record of the concerned officer which ultimately amounts to non supply of copy of all the relevant papers to the workman. The employer cannot insist upon the workman that he should have to inspect certain documents or to have copy out the same from the record of the concerned officer which ultimately amounts to non supply of copy of all the relevant papers to the workman. Merely giving an opportunity to have an inspection and to offer liberty to copy out certain requisite document is not sufficient when certain records relied upon by the employer for issuing the chargesheet against the respondent workman. Therefore, on above two grounds the chargesheet itself is contrary to the principles of natural justice. ( 9 ) THE third aspect of the matter which draws the attention of this Court is that after considering the reply against the chargesheet from the workman, departmental inquiry was held and hence, such departmental inquiry becomes empty formality. In substance, once the employer has come to conclusion that misconduct dated 2 3/01/1979 committed by the workman and calling for an explanation for the punishment only from the respondent workman, then subsequent departmental inquiry becomes mere formality. In fact, the inquiry is suggested with an object in order to give a reasonable opportunity to the workman against the evidence which is led by the employer but that object and substance of inquiry will not survive when misconduct is considered to have proved before conducting the inquiry. In the case on hands, that issue is already concluded by the employer at the time of issuing the chargesheet dated 26/01/1979. Therefore, departmental inquiry subsequent to the chargesheet dated 21/06/1979 has become empty formality and in reality, it was not genuine departmental inquiry with a view to give a reasonable opportunity to the workman. After completion of the inquiry, the finding report has been reported by the inquiry officer and the said report was produced before the Tribunal by the petitioner Corporation. After verifying the inquiry report, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that no reasons have been given by the inquiry officer that on which evidence chargesheet is proved against the workman. No such discussion made in the report and in inquiry report, in the beginning, the witnesses from the complainant side were examined and believed by the inquiry officer and on what basis and for what reasons, he is accepting the evidence from the complainant, has not been discussed by the inquiry officer. No such discussion made in the report and in inquiry report, in the beginning, the witnesses from the complainant side were examined and believed by the inquiry officer and on what basis and for what reasons, he is accepting the evidence from the complainant, has not been discussed by the inquiry officer. In the inquiry report, inquiry was held in case of one of the employees and since both the cases involving same legal question and therefore, the inquiry officer has treated the opinion in case of Shri Soni co-employee, as an opinion in the case of the present petitioner. No separate detailed inquiry nor any separate finding was given, in other words, inquiry report has been given by inquiry officer and therefore, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that in absence of a detailed report from the inquiry officer, the finding is vitiated and held to be contrary to the principles of natural justice. ( 10 ) I have perused the entire award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Looking to the facts which are on record and undisputed facts between the parties itself are sufficient enough to hold that the chargesheet, departmental inquiry and finding of the inquiry officer are contrary to the principles of natural justice. ( 11 ) SO far as the question of departmental inquiry is concerned, what are the requirements according to the principles of natural justice, have been considered in detailed by the Honble Apex Court in case of MEENGLAS TEA ESTATE V. THE WORKMEN reported in AIR 1963 SC 1719 . The relevant observations made in para-4 of aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under :-"4. THE Tribunal held that the enquiry was vitiated because it was not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is contended that this conclusion was erroneous. But we have no doubt about its correctness. The enquiry consisted of putting questions to each workman in turn. No witness was examined in support of the charge before the workman was, questioned. It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirements must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted. A departure from this requirement in effect throws the burden upon the person charged to repel the charge without first making it out against him. In the present case neither was any witness examined nor was any statement made by any witness tendered in evidence. The enquiry, such as it was, was made by Mr. Marshall or Mr. Nichols who were not only in the positionof judges but also of prosecutors and witnesses. There Was DO opportunity to the persons charged to cross-examine them and indeed they drew upon their own knowledge of the incident and instead cross-examined the persons charged. This was such a travesty of the principles of natural ,justice that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the findings and asking the Company to prove the allegation against each workman de novo before it. " ( 12 ) SIMILARLY, this aspect has also been examined by the Apex Court again in case of SUR ENAMEL AND STAMPING WORKS LTD V. THE WORKMEN reported in AIR 1963 SC 1914 . The relevant observations made by the Apex Court in para-4 of the aforesaid case are referred as under :-"4. IN support of the appeal against this order Mr. Sen Gupta has urged that it was not open to the Industrial Tribunal to go behind the finding arrived at by the domestic tribunal. He contended that the Tribunal was wrong in thinking that the rules of natural justice were not followed. It appears that a joint enquiry was held against Manik and one Birinchi. Nobody was examined at this enquiry to prove the charges. Only Manik and Birinchi were examined. They were. He contended that the Tribunal was wrong in thinking that the rules of natural justice were not followed. It appears that a joint enquiry was held against Manik and one Birinchi. Nobody was examined at this enquiry to prove the charges. Only Manik and Birinchi were examined. They were. , confronted with the reports of the supervisor and other persons made behind their backs and were simply asked why these persons would be making the reports against them falsely. It is not clear whether what they said was recorded. According to the inquiring authority they were "unable to explain as to why these persons would be making the reports against them falsely. " In our opinion, it would be a misuse of the words to say that this amounted to holding of proper enquiry it has been laid down by this Courtin a series of decisions that if an industrial employees services are terminated after a proper domestic enquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice and the conclusions reached at the enquiry are not perverse the industrial tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or the correctness of the said conclusions. In a number of cases which have come to this Court in recent months, we find that some employers have misunderstood the decisions of this Court to mean that the mere form of an enquiry would satisfy the requirements of industrial law and would protect the disciplinary action taken by them from challenge. This attitude is wholly misconceived. An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are examined-ordinarily in the presence of the employee-in respect of the charges, (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the enquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report. In the present case the persons whose statements made behind the backs of the employees were used by the enquiring authority were not made available for cross-examination but it would appear that they were not even present at the enquiry. In the present case the persons whose statements made behind the backs of the employees were used by the enquiring authority were not made available for cross-examination but it would appear that they were not even present at the enquiry. It does not even appear that these reports were made available to the employee at any time before the enquiry was held. Even if the persons who made the reports had been present and the employee given an opportunity to cross-examine them, it would have been difficult to say in these circumstances that was a fair and sufficient opportunity. But in this case it appears that the persons who made the reports did not attend the enquiry at all. From whatever aspect the matter is examined it is clear that there was no enquiry worth the name and the Tribunal was justifies in entirely ignoring the conclusion reached by the domestic Tribunal. " ( 13 ) THE decisions of the Apex Court referred to above have also been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. CHANDULAL G. RASADIYA reported in 1993 [1] GLR 442. ( 14 ) IN respect of finding, the view taken by the Apex Court in case of ANIL KUMAR V. PRESIDING OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1985 SC 1121 , the relevant observations made in Para-5 and 6 are quoted as under :-"5. WE have extracted the charges framed against the appellant. We have also pointed out in clear terms the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is well settled that a disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi judicial enquiry held according to the principles of natural justice and the Enquiry Officer has a duty to act judicially. The Enquiry Officer did not apply his mind to the evidence. Save setting out the names of the witnesses, he did not discuss the evidence. He merely recorded his ipse dixit that the charges are proved. He did not assign a single reason why the evidence produced by the appellant did not appeal to him or was considered not credit-worty. He did not permit a peep into his mind as to why the evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the appellant. An enquiry report in quasi judicial enquiry must show the reasons for conclusion. He did not permit a peep into his mind as to why the evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the appellant. An enquiry report in quasi judicial enquiry must show the reasons for conclusion. it cannot be an ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons. This is too well settled to be supported by a precedent. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. V. Union of India [1966] 1 SCR 466 : [ air 1966 SC 671 ], this Court observed that a speaking order will at best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard. Similarly in Mahabir Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1971] 1 SCR 201 : [ air 1970 SC 1302 ], this Court reiterated that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appealed to the authority. It should all the more be so where the quasi judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character. In this case the enquiry report is an order sheet which merely produces the stage through which the enquiry passed. It clearly disclosed a total non application of mind and it is this report on which the General Manager acted in terminating the service of the appellant. There could not have been a gross case of non application of mind and it is such an enquiry which has found favour with the Labour Court and the High Court. 6. WHERE a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order sheet and no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to observe that it is not an enquiry report at all. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order sheet and no correlation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to observe that it is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the order of termination based on such proceeding disclosing non application of mind would be unsustainable. " ( 15 ) RECENTLY also this aspect has been examined by the Apex Court in case of SHER BAHADUR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 2002 [7] SCC 142. The Apex Court in para-7 of the above judgment has observed as under :-"7. IT may be observed that the expression "sufficiency of evidence" postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however voluminous it may be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no evidence in law. The mere fact that the enquiry officer has noted in his report, "in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry", would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence. Though, the disciplinary authority cited one witness Shri R. A. Vashist, Ex. CVI / Northern Railway, New Delhi, in support of the charges, he was not examined. Regarding documentary evidence, Ext. P-1, referred to in the enquiry report and adverted to by the high Court, is the order of appointment of the appellant which is a neutral fact. The enquiry officer examined the charged officer but nothing is elicited to connect him with the charge. The statement of the appellant recorded by the enquiry officer shows no more than his working earlier to his re-engagement during the period between May 1978 and November, 1979 in different phases. Indeed, his statement was not relied upon by the enquiry officer. The finding of the enquiry officer that in view of the oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence, the charge against the appellant for securing the fraudulent appointment letter duly signed by the said APO [const. ] was proved, is, in the light of the above discussion, erroneous. Indeed, his statement was not relied upon by the enquiry officer. The finding of the enquiry officer that in view of the oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence, the charge against the appellant for securing the fraudulent appointment letter duly signed by the said APO [const. ] was proved, is, in the light of the above discussion, erroneous. In our view, this is clearly as case of finding the appellant guilty of charge without having any evidence to link the appellant with the alleged misconduct. he High Court did not consider this aspect in its proper perspective as such the judgment and order of the High Court and the order of the disciplinary authority, under challenge, cannot be sustained, they are accordingly set aside. " ( 16 ) IN view of above observations made by the Apex Court in cases referred to above and considering the facts of the present case that chargesheet dated 21/06/1979 issued by the competent authority with a predetermined mind that misconduct is proved without holding departmental inquiry and the action of the petitioner at stage calling for an explanation from the workman to answer that as to why he should not be dismissed from service that itself is contrary to the principles of natural justice which clearly disclosed predetermined mind to come to the conclusion at the stage of chargesheet that alleged misconduct is considered to be proved. Moreover, non supply of documents along with chargesheet and to direct inspection or offer liberty to copy out certain document, if required, is also contrary to the principles of natural justice. Moreover, subsequent departmental inquiry based on the chargesheet being empty formality and in substance when the departmental inquiry was initiated with a predetermined mind that itself is also contrary to the principles of natural justice. The finding recorded by the inquiry officer without giving any reason or without discussing the evidence and without mentioning the fact that on what basis the inquiry officer has come to the conclusion that misconduct is found proved. In absence of such reasons and discussion, finding arrived at as result of said inquiry stands vitiated. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts and rightly examined the chargesheet, departmental inquiry and finding recorded by the inquiry officer. In absence of such reasons and discussion, finding arrived at as result of said inquiry stands vitiated. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts and rightly examined the chargesheet, departmental inquiry and finding recorded by the inquiry officer. Therefore, according to my opinion, naturally the tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that holding that entire departmental proceeding itself from the beginning itself is contrary to the principles of the natural justice inasmuch as it is having prejudice effect on the rights of the workman to defend in such departmental inquiry and the tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the entire process is contrary to the principles of natural justice and it amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to the workman concerned. The tribunal has committed no error while exercising such powers, on the contrary, the tribunal has given cogent reasons in support of its conclusion and therefore, according to my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error while passing such award impugned in this petition. Learned advocate Mr. Nirav Chokshi for the petitioner Corporation has not been able to point out any other infirmity or any perversity in the award in question. In light of above facts, all the contentions raised by learned Advocate Mr. Chokshi are not worth acceptance and same are rejected without any merits. Except the contentions dealt with above, no other contention is raised by learned advocate Mr. Nirav Chokshi. ( 17 ) THEREFORE, the Tribunal has rightly examined the issues and rightly passed legal and valid award and no error has been committed by the tribunal while passing such award which in any way requires interference by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and hence, there is no substance in the present petition and therefore the same is dismissed accordingly. ( 18 ) IT is pertinent to note one more important aspect to the effect that at the time of issuing Rule on 5th April, 1994, this Court has not granted any stay against the impugned award. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Sompura has submitted that the award in question must have been implemented by now by the petitioner Corporation but in the event of non implementation of the award in question, this Court may issue some suitable directions on the petitioner to implement the award in question. Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Sompura has submitted that the award in question must have been implemented by now by the petitioner Corporation but in the event of non implementation of the award in question, this Court may issue some suitable directions on the petitioner to implement the award in question. In view of this fact, it is directed to the petitioner Corporation to implement the award dated 21st September, 1993 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference [it] No. 54 / 88 and to pay the difference and arrears of salary to the respondent workman within period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this Court. ( 19 ) IN the result, the petition stands dismissed accordingly. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. .