JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Mr. V. Shivnath Challenges the final Award in this case only to the extent it relates to the direction for payment of 75% back wages together with all benefits till date of superannuation. He does not challenge the Award in so far as it relates to reinstatement. 3. At the stage of deciding the preliminary issue on the fairness of the domestic inquiry, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad came to a conclusion that the departmental inquiry held prior to the order of dismissal was fair and proper. He also held that he found much force in the plea of the Management to the effect that there were no lacunae in conducting the departmental inquiry and that the workman had himself specifically recorded that he was fully satisfied with the same. 4. Mr. V. Shivnath learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph-16 wherein the he states that in an identical matter-which led to Reference Case No. 89/ 93, the same Tribunal had heard the matter and had passed an Award of reinstatement with a direction of back wages but liberty was given to the Management to proceed with the inquiry by placing him under suspension and continue the inquiry from the stage of furnishing copy of the report. 5. Mr. V. Shivnath further stated that the aforementioned Award was challenged vide CWJC No. 3231 of 1996 (R) but the Writ was dismissed and the Award was upheld. 6. Mr. V. Shivnath submits that similar treatment ought to have been given in this case also but inspite of doing so, what the learned Tribunal has done is that at paragraph-21, while setting aside the order of dismissal from service, the Management has been directed to reinstate the workman from the date of dismissal till superannuation i.e. June 1995 and the concerned workman has been directed to be paid 75% of backwages with all benefits till date of superannuation. Mr. Mr. V. Shivnath submits that in this case also after reinstatement the petitioner should have been given liberty to proceed with the inquiry by placing the workman under suspension or the concerned workman should have been given direction to file a representation before the Management to reconsider the matter only in relation to punishment. 7. Mr. V. Shivnath, in support of the aforesaid contention relies upon the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Managing Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad, etc. v. B. Karunakar etc. reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 . Paragraph-7 (v) of the aforementioned Judgment is relevant to be taken note of. The same is therefore produced below :-- "7. (v) The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the Inquiry Officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice. Hence, in all cases where the Inquiry Officers report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court Tribunal, and give the employee an opportunity to show cause Honble Mr. Justice his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non- supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being down at present. The Courts should avoid resorting to shortcuts. Since it is the Court/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only if the Courts/Tribunals find that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. Where after following the above procedure, the Courts/Tribunals sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the uthority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. Where after following the above procedure, the Courts/Tribunals sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the uthority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of reinstatement if ultimately ordered should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the state of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this Court in State Bank of India v. N. Sundra Money, (1976) 3 SCR 160 : AIR 1976 SC 1111 , where the Court has shown the proper course to be adopted where the termination of service of an employee is faulted on a technical ground. This was a case where an employee was appointed as Cashier off and on by the State Bank of India between July 31, 1973 and August 29, 1973. Together with the earlier employment, this nine days employment during the said period had ripen into 240 days of broken bits of service. The employment, however, was terminated without notice or payment of retrenchment compensation. The Court moulded the relief taking into consideration the long period which had passed and directed that the employee would be put back to the same position where he left off, but his new salary will be what he would draw were he to be appointed in the same post "today" MIde novo. The Court moulded the relief taking into consideration the long period which had passed and directed that the employee would be put back to the same position where he left off, but his new salary will be what he would draw were he to be appointed in the same post "today" MIde novo. He was further directed to be ranked below all permanent employees in that cadre and to be deemed to be a temporary hand till that time. He was not allowed to claim any advantages in the matter of seniority. As for the emoluments, he was left to pursue other remedies, if any." 8. Drawing the same analogy from the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India, it is clear from the perusal of the impugned Award that the Tribunal took into consideration the earlier similar case which was involved in Reference case No. 89/93 where the dismissal was set aside on account of non furnishing of the Enquiry Report and it was on that background that there was an order of reinstatement with a direction to back wages with a liberty to the Management to proceed with the inquiry by placing him under suspension. Paragraph 19, 29 and 21 of the impugned Award are suggestive of the fact that in this case the Tribunal also set aside the Award of dismissal on the same ground and directed the reinstatement of the workman from the date of dismissal till superannuation i.e. June, 1995 and made him entitled of 75% of full back wages and other benefits till the date of superannuation. 9. Consequently, the Award in so far as it relates to reinstatement is not interfered with especially when Mr. V. Shivnath has agreed to the fact that he is not challenging the Award of reinstatement. 10. In that view of the matter and drawing the same analogy as per the observations of the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case cited above, the concerned workman is given an opportunity to show and establish as to how he was prejudiced because of non supply of the report and pray for full backwages and, if after hearing the parties, the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that because of non supply of the report the concerned workman was prejudiced, then he may order for full back-wages and other consequential benefits. So far as the proposed penal Order that is to be effected on account of a valid inquiry where the same was held to be fair and proper, the Management may, if it so chooses pass a penal Order, if permissible, strictly in accordance with law. 11. It is made clear that the workman who has retired cannot be punished unless there is a rule/guideline to pass such penal order for withholding/or curtailing the retiral benefits. If such a rule/guideline is in existence, then in such case only the Management may do so. The matter to that extent therefore shall stand remanded to the Tribunal which shall decide the issues within shortest possible time but not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The concerned workman who is being represented by Mr. S.N. Das Shall file copy of this order and appropriate representation/petition before the Tribunal within two weeks from the date of signing of this Judgment. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this Writ Application stands disposed off.