Judgment Both these writ applications are disposed of by this common order, since the challenge by the petitioners in both the applications is to the same impugned Award dated 09.01.2002 (Annexure-1), passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 21 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, the Management, namely, the B.S.R.T.C. has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement in service and other benefits. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The Award of the Labour Court as made in the Reference Case No. 21 of 1998 was in connection with the dispute raised between the Management of the B.S.R.T.C. and the workman-Prahlad Ahuja which was referred for adjudication by the Government of Bihar vide Notification No. 7/Shram-1-2002/98 L and R-3648, dated 25.09.1998. The terms of reference was as follows:- “Whether the dismissal of Shri Prahlad Ahuja, Driver, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Jamshedpur is justified? If not, what relief, he is entitled to?” While the Management (B.S.R.T.C.) has challenged the Award on the ground that the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the disciplinary authority, the workman has challenged the Award on the ground that the Award for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement of back wages and other benefits is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. Facts of the case briefly stated is as follows:- The workman, Prahlad Ahuja was employed as a Bus Driver under the B.S.R.T.C. A chargesheet was served upon him on 16.05.1988 on the charge of misconduct and of violating the Rules of the Corporation. The substance of the charge, as per the complaint of the Time Keeper, is that on 25.04.1988, at around 10.:15 A.M., the Bus bearing Registration No. 8628, of which the workman was the Driver, reached at the Tatanagar Railway station counter, but he in connivance with the conductor of the Bus, [2] [W.P. (S) No. 2600 of 2002] with [W.P. (L) No. 3030 of 2002] left the Bus stop for onward journey without making any entry in the Master challan regarding the number of passengers and luggages and had fled away after forcibly taking the challan from the Time Keeper at the counter. The workman submitted his explanation denying the charges. The workman submitted his explanation denying the charges. His explanations having not been found satisfactory, a disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him. The workman was given opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Report holding that the charge against the workman was proved. On the basis of the findings of the enquiry Report, the disciplinary authority dismissed the workman from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, the workman raised the industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the labour court. The main ground on which the workman had challenged the order of dismissal was that the enquiry conducted against him, was not fair and that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry officer are perverse and not in consonance with the evidences adduced even by the Management. The Management in its turn, challenged the very reference of the dispute to the Labour court for adjudication and had also contended that the Labour court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact and on the decision taken by the employer. 5. After hearing the parties and allowing them to adduce evidence on their respective claims, the learned court below dismissed the objections raised by the Management by holding that the findings arrived at in the enquiry, are perverse and that no fair and proper enquiry was conducted. Such inference was drawn by the learned court below on the basis of the fact that the Management failed to bring on record the entire documents relating to the enquiry and secondly, because in the proceedings before the labour court, the Management had failed to examine the enquiry officer. The labour court had also considered and discussed the evidences adduced by the Management before it and had observed from the evidence of the Management-witness No. 1, namely, the Time Keeper, Shiv Narayan Tiwary, that it indicated that the entire fault was on the part of the conductor of the Bus, since it was his duty to hand over the challan and to obtain the entries in the challan from the Time Keeper and obtain his permission before leaving the station and that the Driver of the Bus was obliged to act on the instructions of the Conductor of Bus. On the basis of the evidences adduced before it, the learned court below has held that the Enquiry officer acted for the management and although the charges were not proved against the workman, still he was found guilty of the charges and that the disciplinary authority, without properly examining the proceedings of the enquiry, had illegally dismissed the workman from service. The court below has also observed that the Conductor of the Bus, namely, Anand Kumar Tiwary, who was also issued a chargesheet for the same misconduct and an enquiry was held against him and, though he was found guilty of the charges, but he was let off and was reinstated in service with full back wages. It is also observed from the facts of the case that before proceeding to act upon the findings of the enquiry officer and to dismiss the workman, no notice was served upon him alongwith a copy of the enquiry report to enable him to offer his explanation against the proposed punishment of dismissal. 6. Assailing the impugned Award, Mr. P.P. N. Roy, learned counsel for the Management (B.S.R.T.C.) submits that the Presiding Officer of the labour court has committed a serious and grave error by ignoring the entire evidence brought on record and by recording its finding only on the ground that the enquiry officer was not examined. Learned counsel explains that the Labour Court ought to have considered, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Management, that the workman-Driver had committed the act of misconduct in connivance with the Conductor of the Bus and that both the Driver and the Conductor are equally responsible and the workman has committed act of gross indiscipline by ignoring the orders of his superior officer, namely, the Time-Keeper. 7. The workman, on the other hand has assailed the impugned Award on the ground that after holding that the order of his dismissal was illegal and also after observing that the Conductor of the Bus, who was, in fact, exclusively liable for the alleged misconduct, and though proceeded in the disciplinary enquiry, but was let off and was even reinstated in service, the petitioner ought to have been given the same relief by the labour court by way of his reinstatement in service. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Shankar Lal Agarwal, learned counsel for the workman, would argue that on the date when the order of his dismissal from service was passed, the workman had two more years of service before his retirement and the learned court below ought to have considered that if the petitioner would have continued in service till the date of his superannuation, he would have been entitled for the monetary benefits of service for the remaining period. Learned counsel submits further that even though on the date of the passing of the impugned Award, the workman had already attained the age of retirement, the learned court below ought to have awarded a reasonable amount of compensation instead of the amount granted by the Award, which is too meager and disproportionate to the loss and detriment suffered by the workman. 9. As observed above, the learned court below, upon considering the evidences adduced before it by the Management, and relying upon the evidence of the Time Keeper, has held that the evidences do not support or prove the charges framed against the workman-Driver and therefore, the finding of guilt as recorded by the Enquiry Officer, is perverse and not in consonance with the evidence on record. For the same reasons, the learned court below has also found that the disciplinary authority did not consider the evidences adduced at the enquiry in proper perspective and therefore, the order was held to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Principles of natural justice. I do not find any infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order whereby the order of dismissal was set aside. 10. As regards the workman’s claim, admittedly, on the date of his termination from service, the workman was left with two more years of service before the date of his retirement. On the date of passing of the Award, he had already crossed the age of superannuation and therefore, no order could possibly be passed for his reinstatement in service. Admittedly, his salary at the relevant time was Rs. 600/-per month. Thus, even if he had continued two more years of his service, till the date of his retirement, his total earnings from the monthly salary, would not have exceeded more than 1.5 lakhs. The learned court below has assessed the amount of compensation payable to the workman at Rs. 2. 600/-per month. Thus, even if he had continued two more years of his service, till the date of his retirement, his total earnings from the monthly salary, would not have exceeded more than 1.5 lakhs. The learned court below has assessed the amount of compensation payable to the workman at Rs. 2. 5 lakhs indicating that the amount would cover the back wages and the other monetary benefits, which the workman would have earned till the date of his superannuation. Even if in its Award the learned court below has not elaborated the basis of computing the amount of compensation, but has declared that the amount assessed was just and reasonable compensation. 11. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit either in the writ application filed by the Management or in the writ application filed by the Workman. Accordingly, both these writ applications [W.P. (S) No. 2600 of 2002 and W.P. (L) No. 3030 of 2002] are hereby dismissed. The Management-B.S.R.T.C. is directed to pay the compensation amount to the workman as per the Award, within three month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event of its failure to pay the amount within the period stipulated hereby, the Management of the B.S.R.T.C. shall pay interest @ 12 per cent per annum calculated from one month after the date of passing of the Award and till final payment. 12. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondents.