JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. The award dated 30th June 1993 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore in T.D. Case No.65/1991 is assailed by the petitioner who is an employee under the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (for short OSRTC), Berhampur. It appears from the averments made that while the petitioner was working as an Asst. Store Keeper in the Odagon Circle, certain allegations as to his misconduct and negligence of duty were received against him. Consequently by order dtd.1.11.1974 he was suspended on the ground of misconduct and negligence of duty. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges and requesting to exclude him from the same. The authority however found the explanation submitted by the petitioner to be not satisfactory and initiated a Departmental Proceeding. The author¬ity called upon the petitioner to submit his show cause reply. After receiving of the show cause reply the authority conducted the enquiry and it is alleged that without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself found him guilty and after observing all paraphernalia, imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, and directed the period of suspension to be treated as such. Being aggrieved by the punishment imposed and the action of the author¬ities in not giving promotion to the petitioner, he raised an industrial dispute. As conciliation failed, the dispute was referred by the State Government in consonance with Section 12(5) read with Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court for adjudication. The points of reference read as follows: (1) Whether the punishment awarded by the Transport Co.Ltd. Jatni now known as Orissa State Road Transport Corporation on Sri P. Panduranga Rao, Asst. Store Keeper by way of treating the period of suspension as such and not on duty and withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect in his order No.151 dt.30.1.1975 is legal and or justified ? and (2) Whether the action of the Management of the erstwhile Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd., Cuttack in not giving promotion to Sri P.Panduranga Rao, Asst. Store Keeper to the post of Store Keeper Grade-II and Grade-I with effect from 13.3.1985 and 17.7.1986 respectively is legal and justified ? If not what relief the workmen is entitled ? 2. and (2) Whether the action of the Management of the erstwhile Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd., Cuttack in not giving promotion to Sri P.Panduranga Rao, Asst. Store Keeper to the post of Store Keeper Grade-II and Grade-I with effect from 13.3.1985 and 17.7.1986 respectively is legal and justified ? If not what relief the workmen is entitled ? 2. The Labour Court heard both the parties, perused the materials produced before it and enquired as to whether the domestic enquiry was conducted fairly by observing principles of natural justice and as to whether adequate opportunity had been given to the petitioner workman to defend himself. After thread¬bare discussion of the evidence the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Traffic Manager himself being the competent authority to award punishment was a witness to the incident of alleged search and in all fairness of things he should not have been the Enquiring Officer. It further concluded that the Traffic Manager had personal bias, that the enquiry was a perfunctory one and the procedure adopted in the proceeding clearly violated the principles of natural justice and equity. Relying upon several decisions the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the pun¬ishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, who himself was the Enquiry Officer and witness to the alleged occurrence, could not be sustained in the eye of law. Consequently he held the petitioner not guilty of the charges and was entitled to all service benefits, the suspension period being treated as on duty and the petitioner was entitled to normal annual increments. 3. So far as promotion to higher post is concerned, the Labour Court held that the Selection Committee had taken all the facts into consideration and acted in good faith without any malice or bias against anybody and held that the action of the management in not giving promotion to the petitioner to the post of Store-Keeper Grade-I as he was found not fit for promotion was justified. After perusing the records of the Selection Committee, C.C.Rs. and other materials the Labour Court held that as three vacancies of Store Keepers, Grade-II were there, the Selection Committee had not acted diligently while dealing with the promo¬tion of the Asst. Store Keepers to the post of Store Keeper, Grade-I and held that the action of the management in giving promotion from the post of Asst. and other materials the Labour Court held that as three vacancies of Store Keepers, Grade-II were there, the Selection Committee had not acted diligently while dealing with the promo¬tion of the Asst. Store Keepers to the post of Store Keeper, Grade-I and held that the action of the management in giving promotion from the post of Asst. Store Keeper to the post of Store Keeper, Grade-II and Grade-I w.e.f. 13.3.1985 and 17.7.1986 was not legal and justified. Referring to Clause 24 of the Stand¬ing Order and on the principles of seniority-cum-efficiency, the Labour Court held that the petitioner was entitled to promotion to the post of Store Keeper, Grade-II w.e.f. 13.3.1985 and conse¬quently to the post of Grade-I w.e.f. 17.7.1986 i.e. from the date promotions had been given to his juniors, vide Exts.K and L. It was held that his promotional case having not been duly con¬sidered either by the Selection Committee or by the Appointing Authority, he had been discriminated and overlooked and withhold¬ing his promotion amounted to arbitrariness. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was eligible to get promotion to the post of Grade-II and Grade-I w.e.f. 13.3.1985 and 17.7.1986 respectively, but then directed that his pay would be fixed at promotional posts at such rate as it would have been fixed at such stages had he been given promotion from the due dates but without back wages or financial benefits from those dates. The Labour Court answered the reference in affirmative. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ application being aggrieved by the observations made by the Labour Court that after holding the petitioner eligible for promotion and come to the conclusion that the management erred in not considering his case of promotions and while directing the notional promotions from retrospective dates, the Labour Court acted illegally in direct¬ing that he would not be entitled to any back wages. According to the petitioner the action of the management being held to be not justified, the Labour Court ought to have granted back wages. 5. After receiving Rule a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No.2. According to the petitioner the action of the management being held to be not justified, the Labour Court ought to have granted back wages. 5. After receiving Rule a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No.2. In the counter affidavit a stand has been taken to the effect that the Labour Court has rightly directed that the petitioner should be notionally promot¬ed to the post of Store Keeper, Grade-II w.e.f. 13.3.1985 and to the post of Store Keeper, Grade-I w.e.f. 17.7.1986 i.e. the dates when promotions were given to the juniors. It is stated that as the petitioner had not discharged the duties in the promotional posts he was not entitled to back wages for the higher posts. It is further stated that none of the juniors who were promoted having been impleaded as parties to the reference, if the writ application is allowed it would unsettle the matter already settled and would put financial burden on the management which is running at heavy loss. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties length, perused the award and other material and documents annexed to the writ application. The Labour Court after vivid discussion of the materials available has arrived at a conclusion that the Traffic Manager became the Judge of his own cause inasmuch as he was a witness he acted as the Enquiring Officer. There were also appar¬ent errors on records of the Disciplinary Proceeding inasmuch as neither principles of natural justice and equity were followed, nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to properly defend himself. As such the Labour Court set aside the punishment im¬posed and directed the period of suspension to be treated as on duty. Admittedly, the OSSRTC has not challenged the award. Thus the findings stated above have become final and binding on the parties. 7. The other question which remains to be considered is as to whether the Labour Court after directing that the petitioner to be given retrospective promotions to the posts of Store Keeper Grade-II and Grade-l w.e.f. 13.3.1985 and 17.7.1986 was justified in holding that the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages or financial benefits from those dates. Admittedly, the petitioner was kept out of service by the Management. On the other hand, it is a well known fact that OSRTC is passing through acute financial stringencies. Admittedly, the petitioner was kept out of service by the Management. On the other hand, it is a well known fact that OSRTC is passing through acute financial stringencies. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that it has no financial stability even to pay the day to day wages of the employees working. Fact remains, the suspension order passed against the petitioner has been set aside. Thus the petitioner is to be treated to be on duty and he shall be enti¬tled to the salary due to him. But then, a workman would be entitled to wages for the post in which he is discharging his duties. The petitioner has not worked in the promotional posts even for a day. As has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, he was kept out of service and the authorities illegally promoted his juniors. Considering all these facts and the legal positions, and taking a liberal view this Court feels that as the petitioner was kept out of service for no fault of his, and he received salary for the period of his service, I direct that apart from the relief granted by the Tribunal he shall be entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/ - (Rupees Twenty-five thousand) towards his back wages. The authorities are directed to give him promo¬tions and take immediate steps for making payment of his legiti¬mate dues as expeditiously as possible. The Writ Application is accordingly disposed of. Application disposed of.