JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In this application the petitioner TELCO has challenged the Award dated 5.1.1996, passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Ref. Case No. 10 of 1987 as contained in Annexure-7 whereby the Labour Court, set-aside the order of dismissal from service against the respondent No. 2 namely N.K. Singh and directed him to reinstate in service with half wages and other consequential benefits including continuity of service. 2. The facts which are not In dispute arc that the respondent No. 2 N.K. Singh i.e., the concerned workman was in unauthorised occupation of the Companys quarter No. N-121/4 and one another workman namely R.P. Singh was in unauthorised occupation of Companys quarter No. K-11/8. Against both of them Civil Suits were filed for their eviction and the suits were decreed in favour of the Company. For execution of the decree passed against both the aforesaid workmen i.e. the petitioner and R.P. Singh. Nazir of Civil Court and A.K. Banerjee Town warden with other officers from the Company went to get vacant possession of the aforesaid two quarters. The respondent No. 2 namely N.K. Singh vacated the quarter No. N-121/4 under his unauthorised occupation. 3. The facts which are disputed are that when the Nazir of the Civil Court went to get vacant possession of the quarter No. K-11/8 held by the workman R.P. Singh, the respondent No. 2 herein i.e.. N.K. Singh assaulted the Town Administration A.K. Banerjee, who had gone there along with the Nazir to get possession of the quarter No. K-11/8 for which a criminal case was also instituted against the respondent No. 2 N.K. Singh and the other workman R.P. Singh but the said criminal ease ended in acquittal. 4. It is also not disputed that the petitioner company issued charge sheets against N.K. Singh and R.P. Singh both and ultimately both were dismissed from the service. R P Singh the other workman raised Industrial Dispute culminating into Ref. Case No. 4 of 1986. 5. The Labour Court, Jamshedpur by its award dated 12.7.1993 set-aside the order of dismissal from service and directed for his reinstatement with half back wages and other consequential benefit with continuity of service, as has been done in the Award which is under challenge in the present writ application. 6. Case No. 4 of 1986. 5. The Labour Court, Jamshedpur by its award dated 12.7.1993 set-aside the order of dismissal from service and directed for his reinstatement with half back wages and other consequential benefit with continuity of service, as has been done in the Award which is under challenge in the present writ application. 6. The said Award was also challenged before this Court by the petitioner- company in CWJC No. 983 of 1994(R). A Single Bench of this Court by judgment dated 8.8.2002 disposed of the said writ application, after holding that the Labour Court rightly held that the dismissal from service was disproportionate to the charges levelled against the workman. However, the learned Single Judge modified the award to the extent that the workman would be entitled to get the half back wages from the date of his dismissal till the award and he will be entitled to full back wages from the date of award till the date of his retirement. 7. The said workman R.P. Singh challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.8.2002 in CWJC No. 983 of 1994(R) in LPA No. 191 of 2003, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of which I was also a member, by order dated 22.4.2003. 8. Dr. Jha learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner though has raised various contentions challenging the findings of the Labour Court wherein it was held that the persons who issued charge sheet, appointed enquiry officer and passed the order of punishment were not competent to do so and as such the entire disciplinary proceeding including order of dismissal were incompetent and beyond authority, but in my view it is not necessary to go into those aspects of the case, in view of the facts which have been noticed above in earlier paragraphs that the charge against the petitioner was that he indulged in assault of the Town Administration of the Company along with R.P. Singh while the quarter No. K-11/8 in occupation of the workman R.P. Singh was being vacated and not during the eviction of this workman N.K. Singh rather this workman vacated the quarter No. N 121/4 under his unauthorized occupation in compliance of the writ of delivery of possession issued by the Civil Court. 9. 9. Since this Court in the case of R.P. Singh has already passed an order holding that the order of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the charges and disposed of the writ application with certain directions as already mentioned in the earlier paragraph and judgment the of the learned Single Judge has since been affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 191 of 2003 and therefore in my view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment dated 8.8.2003 passed in CWJC No. 983 of 1994(R) and the order dated 22.4.2003 passed in LPA No. 191 of 2003 and therefore the present writ application is also being disposed of the similar terms as that of in CWJC No. 983 of 1994(R). 10. Consequently the writ applications is allowed in part. The order passed by the Labour Court Jamshedpur regarding reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 after setting aside the order of his dismissal from service is affirmed with consequential benefits and continuity in service but so far as the order of the Labour Court for direction to pay the half back wages is concerned is set aside and the award is modified to the extent that the concerned workman shall be entitled to get half back wages from the date of dismissal to the date of award of the Labour Court and thereafter he shall be entitled to get full wages. The wages already paid shall be adjusted while making final calculation.