Judgment : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, A. C. J, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated November 20, 2002 passed by the learned single Judge in c. W. J. C. No. 818 of 2000 (R), whereby and whereunder, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant, on the ground that the appellant had already accepted the order of reappointment without even a demur and thereby the Court refused to interfere with the impugned award. ( 2 ) THE brief fact of the case is that the appellant was appointed on May 28, 1979 as fitter at Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro. He remained absent from duty without prior permission for more than fifteen days. The management of Bokaro Steel Plant while held that he had abandoned the service, removed his name from the roll of the Company w. e. f. October 1, 1980 by an order dated December 15/16, 1980 under clause 20 (XI) of the standing Orders without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act. Thereafter, at the instance of the union i. e. Bokaro Karmchari Panchayat, bokaro Steel City, the Government of Bihar vide Notification No. 4/d2- 14069/93 L, E and t-126 dated January 24, 1994, referred the following dispute for adjudication. "whether the termination of service of Sri n. K. Singh, Fitter, Staff No. 420935, t. P. P. and T. B. S. (501), Bokaro Steel plant, Bokaro Steel City is proper? If not, what relief Sri Singh is entitled to?" ( 3 ) THE learned Presiding Officer, Labour court, Bokaro Steel City, on hearing the parties and appreciation of evidence led by the parties, by its award dated July 29, 1979, held the order of termination dated December 15/16, 1980 as illegal and nullity having passed in violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act. He further held the order of termination as penal, in nature, as also harsh and excessive. The Reference Case No. 17/94 was answered in favour of workman N. K. Singh (appellant) and it was ordered to reappoint him but without any back wages and promotion nor any other consequential benefit was granted as the Presiding Officer held the appellant negligent towards his duty. The Reference Case No. 17/94 was answered in favour of workman N. K. Singh (appellant) and it was ordered to reappoint him but without any back wages and promotion nor any other consequential benefit was granted as the Presiding Officer held the appellant negligent towards his duty. ( 4 ) THE appellant challenged the last part of the award dated July 29, 1999 passed in reference Case No. 17/94 before this Court in c. W. J. C. No. 818 of 2000. It was dismissed by the learned single Judge on November 20, 2002 on the ground that the appellant had accepted the order of reappointment without a demur. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the parties initially we allowed both the appellant and the respondents time to inform whether the matter can be resolved if the order of reappointment is substituted as an order of reinstatement in service but without back wages, so that the intervening period is not treated as break in service and the workman (appellant) gets the other consequential benefits. ( 6 ) ON December 22, 2004, on instructions, learned counsel for the appellant while agreed to accept the suggestion but the counsel for the Bokaro Steel Plant requested to decide the appeal on merit. It was informed that the Management is against the reinstatement of the appellant. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, the award dated July 29, 1999 in Reference Case No. 17/94 has been passed in favour of the workman-appellant. Therefore, even if he is reappointed or reinstated, in his interest, the appellant was bound to rejoin the service. The award was dictated on July 29, 1999, but it was pronounced on December 16, 1999. The: appellant having received the same immediately filed the writ petition on March 27, 2000 against the last part of the award. In such background learned single Judge should have decided the case on merit instead of refusal on the ground that the appellant had accepted the order of reappointment. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the management of Bokaro steel Plant have not challenged the award dated. July 29, 1999, including the observation and finding of fact made by the learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, Bokaro. ( 9 ) FROM the award, it appears that the workman-appellant took specific plea that he was sick during the period of absence and so he could not attend the duty. July 29, 1999, including the observation and finding of fact made by the learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, Bokaro. ( 9 ) FROM the award, it appears that the workman-appellant took specific plea that he was sick during the period of absence and so he could not attend the duty. He informed of his illness to his superiors. Though the management of Bokaro Steel Plant opposed such submission, the learned Presiding Officer on proper appreciation of evidence came to a definite conclusion and held:". . . . . These allegations of the management are not at all correct vide Exhibit of the management Exhibit M-4 (note-sheet two pages dated November 17, 1980 and december 1, 1980) where sickness of N. K. Singh and receipt of such information has been admitted by the management. Therefore the termination of the workman from service on the pretext of striking off the name from rolls of the company is not justified. Admittedly there is no compliance of the provision of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act hence termination from service of the workman is illegal and void. Admittedly management received intimation of sickness vide Exhibit M-4 read with workman exhibits W-1, W-1/1, W-2, W-2/1. W-3, w-3/1, W-4, W-4/1, W-1/2, W-1/3. The question arises whether the management is justified in saying that the workman abandoned his services. Not at all and the denial of employment by the employer to the workman saying that the workman abandoned services also amounts ic retrenchment and termination. This is not a case of remaining absent exceeding 15 days vide Exhibits W-1, w-1/1, W-1/2 (letters of information), w-2, W-2/1, W-3, W-3/1, W-4, W-4/1 and w-4/2 and management has submitted documents of their own vide Note-sheets exhibit M-4 wherein they have admitted receipt of information from the concerned workman about his sickness/injury etc. which prevented the workman from joining his service and also admitted by M. W. 1 para-10. Hence it is not a case of abandonment of service or to have left service at own accord of the workman. which prevented the workman from joining his service and also admitted by M. W. 1 para-10. Hence it is not a case of abandonment of service or to have left service at own accord of the workman. The termination order dated December 15/16, 1980 as it has not been passed in consonance with the Certified Standing orders of the company, order spells retrenchment and provisions of Section 25-F of I. D. Act have not been complied with, order is nullity for non-compliance of sections 25-G and 25-H of the I. D. Act, 1947, punishment is too harsh and excessive and delay in raising the dispute has been fully explained hence said order is illegal, invalid and not justified. " ( 10 ) THOUGH aforesaid observation was made by the learned Presiding Officer that the workman-appellant was sick and he had intimated about his sickness/injury etc. which prevented him from joining his service and held that it was not a case of abandonment of service or that the workman-appellant had left service at his own accord and further held that the order of termination was issued in violation of section 25-F of the I. D. Act and thereby is illegal and nullity in law, but instead of reinstatement in service, the learned Presiding officer ordered to reappoint the workman-appellant without back wages, seniority and promotion. Other consequential benefits were also denied to him. ( 11 ) THE appellant has brought another fact to the notice of the Court, which has not been disputed by the Management of Bokaro Steel. Plant. Bokaro. Another workman, Shri yudhistir Singh Choudhary a Junior way-Bridge Operator of Bokaro Steel Plant, his service was also terminated on the ground that he abandoned the service having remained. absent from May 12, 1986 to January 10, 1994 i. e. for more than 7 years. In his case also similar reference was made, which was registered as Reference Case No. 13/96. The said ease was also heard by same learned: presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel city. In his case also, the order of termination was held to be illegal having issued in contravention of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act. In his case also similar reference was made, which was registered as Reference Case No. 13/96. The said ease was also heard by same learned: presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel city. In his case also, the order of termination was held to be illegal having issued in contravention of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act. Curiously, in his case also the award was made on the same date i. e. July 29, 1999 by the same presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro but, in his case, the learned Presiding Officer ordered for "reinstatement" with full back wages and consequential benefits which was also accepted by the Management of Bokaro steel Plant. ( 12 ) IN the present case, the counsel for the management of Bokaro Steel Plant could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why different consequential relief was granted by the learned Presiding Officer, Bokaro on the same date, particularly when the case of appellant was on a better footing. In the case of yudhistir Singh Choudhary the allegation for unauthorized absence from duty was for the period of about 7 years but in his case, the order of reinstatement was passed with full back wages, but in the case of appellant, the order of reappointment was issued without back wages, though the absence from duty was for about 1 months that too when the appellants plea was accepted that he was sick and was under medical treatment. Further, once an order of termination is held illegal and void, the automatic consequential effect will be "reinstatement in service". The question of "reappointment" does not arise, though it is open for the Labour Court to deny full or part salary of the intervening period during which the workman remained out of service. For the reasons aforesaid, I hold that the last portion of the award dated July 29, 1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, bokaro in Reference Case No. 17/94 so far as it relates to denial of reinstatement and denial of consequential benefits thereto, as arbitrary, illegal and is, accordingly, set aside. I further hold that the workman-appellant is entitled for reinstatement in service with consequential benefits such as seniority, promotion from the date the Juniors, if any, promoted etc. , except the back wages for the period he remained out of service. I further hold that the workman-appellant is entitled for reinstatement in service with consequential benefits such as seniority, promotion from the date the Juniors, if any, promoted etc. , except the back wages for the period he remained out of service. The award dated July 29, 1999 stands modified to the extent above. ( 13 ) THE Management of Bokaro Steel plant are directed, accordingly, to treat the workman-appellant as reinstated and to provide him with all the consequential benefits, as held above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this judgment, except the back wages. ( 14 ) THIS appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. --- *** --- .