Judgment : 1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2) The above petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India take exception to the order dated 20/01/2011, by which the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur answered the Reference, which was referred to it for adjudication, in favour of the workman i.e. the petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.3055/2011. 3) The petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.3055 was initially appointed on 21/01/1986 as casual labour with the Chief General Manager, Railway Electrification Project Telecom and thereafter he was transferred to the Divisional Engineer Telecom, Microwave (Survey) from the year 1989. He has worked with the respondent BSNL up to 25/06/1993 when he was given the temporary status by a letter dated 02/03/1988 under the provisions of the Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme. It appears that by order dated 18/02/1989, regularized 69 mazdoors similarly situated as the petitioner No.1 was, issued with the order of regularization, however, the petitioner No.1 was not. It is the case of the petitioner No.1 that he was deprived of various facilities of the regular employees and suddenly on 02/12/2002 the BSNL terminated his services with immediate effect by written order on payment of one month salary on 08/11/2002. He submitted a representation against the said termination as he has already put in 16 years of service continuously. It was his case that prior to the said termination, no chargesheet was issued to him and if any enquiry was completed, then such enquiry was conducted without compliance of principles of natural justice, as at no point of time the depositions or statements were recorded on behalf of the party No.1 in his presence and no opportunity of cross-examination was granted to him and thus the alleged enquiry was in utter disregard to the settled principles applicable to the conduct of the departmental enquiries. The issue of the termination of the services of the petitioner No.1 was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur. The statement of claim was accordingly filed by the petitioner No.1 in the said Reference. 4) In the written statement filed by the BSNL, the said respondents admitted that the petitioner was continuously working from 21/01/1986 till 02/11/2002 and his services were utilized as casual motor driver on daily rates basis. The statement of claim was accordingly filed by the petitioner No.1 in the said Reference. 4) In the written statement filed by the BSNL, the said respondents admitted that the petitioner was continuously working from 21/01/1986 till 02/11/2002 and his services were utilized as casual motor driver on daily rates basis. It was the case of the respondents that an incident took place on 26/07/2002 in respect of the loss of some laptops from the vehicle, which the petitioner No.1 was driving and, therefore, an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner No.1 and after following the procedure, his services came to be terminated. It is further the case of the respondents that the procedure as prescribed under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 was applicable, as the petitioner No.1 at the relevant time was working as a temporary status mazdoor, which status stands apart from the status of a confirmed employee. It was further the case of the respondents that to such a class of employee the chargesheet also need not be issued and a termination can be ordered in terms of the said Rules. 5) The said Reference was tried by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur and by the impugned judgment and order dated 20/01/2011, the said Reference came to be allowed inasmuch as the termination of the petitioner No.1 dated 02/11/2002 was set aside. It was ordered that the petitioner No.1 be reinstated in service with continuity in service including regularization of service within one month of the publication of the Award. As indicated above, it is the said order, which is challenged in both the petitions, in so far as Writ Petition No.3055/2011 is concerned, the petitioner No.1workman is aggrieved by the fact that full back wages have been denied to him and in so far as Writ Petition No.1721/2011 is concerned, the petitioners BSNL are aggrieved by the impugned Award of the Tribunal in toto. 6) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the Writ Petition No.3055/2011 Shri Meghe would contend that once the termination was set aside on the ground that the said termination order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the natural corollary to the same would be the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the Writ Petition No.3055/2011 Shri Meghe would contend that once the termination was set aside on the ground that the said termination order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the natural corollary to the same would be the reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages. For the said purposes Shri Meghe, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2007 AIR SCW 137 in the matter of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K. P. Agrawal and anr. wherein the Apex Court has held that once the Labour Court comes to a conclusion that the charges are not proved, the grant of back wages in such cases would be automatic. The learned counsel would therefore contend that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur erred in not awarding full back wages, in so far as the challenge to the reinstatement is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner workman Shri Meghe submitted that in view of the fact that no modicum of procedure was followed prior to the termination of the services of the petitioner No.1, the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in directing the reinstatement with continuity of service cannot be faulted with. Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel Mrs. B.P. Maldhure for the respondent BSNL that it was incumbent on the part of the Tribunal to frame a preliminary issue as regards the fairness of the enquiry as to whether the enquiry was just, fair and proper according to the learned counsel if the Tribunal had recorded a finding against the respondent BSNL, it would have been open for the respondent BSNL to prove the charges by leading evidence in Court. The learned counsel would contend that though in terms of the status of the petitioner No.1, an elaborate procedure need not be followed nevertheless the BSNL has followed the procedure by holding an enquiry and thereafter the termination order dated 02/11/2002 came to be issued. The learned counsel would then contend that in view of the fact that the preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry was just, fair and proper was not framed, the matter be relegated back to the Tribunal for a de novo consideration. The learned counsel would then contend that in view of the fact that the preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry was just, fair and proper was not framed, the matter be relegated back to the Tribunal for a de novo consideration. 7) Having considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner workman and the respondent BSNL, I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the same. In the instant case, as can be seen from the record the cause for the termination order was the enquiry conducted on account of the loss of some laptops from the vehicle, which the petitioner workman was driving. The stand of the respondent BSNL as can be seen from the record is consistent throughout viz. that the petitioner No.1 was a temporary status mazdoor and, therefore, the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 was applicable. It is on the application of the said Rules, that it is the stand of the BSNL that no enquiry is postulated against such a temporary status mazdoor and his services could have been terminated by giving him one month’s notice with pay. 8) However, the fact of the matter is that an enquiry has been held into complicity of the petitioner in the loss of the laptops in the said enquiry, witnesses were examined and who were admittedly not offered for cross-examination to the petitioner. It is further pertinent to note that the enquiry was not proceeded with a chargesheet, which ought to be issued to the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that it is on the basis of the said enquiry that the termination order dated 02/11/2002 had been issued to the petitioner, the said termination order was outcome of the said enquiry, which has been conducted against the petitioner. The Tribunal has gone into the said aspect and recorded a finding, which can be seen from paragraph No.9 of the impugned Award. The Tribunal has recorded that no chargesheet has been issued for the alleged misconduct, the petitioner was not intimated the appointment of the enquiry officer and that the workman was not given any chance for cross-examination of the witnesses or to lead evidence in his defence. The Tribunal, therefore, reached a conclusion that the workman was never given any reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the said enquiry. The Tribunal, therefore, reached a conclusion that the workman was never given any reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the said enquiry. 9) The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the fact that though it was stated that an FIR has been filed with the Police, nothing was put on record to show as to what was the result of the investigation and as to whether the workman was held responsible by the Police for such theft or that the theft of the laptops was committed due to the negligence of the workman. It is on the basis of the said findings that the Tribunal has quashed and set aside the termination order dated 02/11/2002 and was ordered the reinstatement of the respondent No.1 with continuity of service and regularization. 10) In so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent BSNL is concerned, that the Tribunal ought to have framed the preliminary issue as regards the fairness of the enquiry and if the said issue was to have been held against the respondent BSNL, the Tribunal should have granted liberty to the BSNL to prove the misconduct in Court. In my view, in the context of the fact that the defence of the respondent BSNL is replete with the fact that the petitioner workman was a temporary mazdoor and was governed by the Temporary Service Rules and in the teeth of the stand of the respondent BSNL that even an enquiry was not contemplated prior to the services of the petitioner workman, the said submission cannot be countenanced. In making the said submission, the respondent BSNL is approbating and reprobating, on one hand, it is sought to be contended that no enquiry is postulated against a workman of the kind to which the petitioner belongs and on the other hand, it is sought to be contended that if the enquiry was not found to be just and proper, the petitioner No.1 ought to have been given the opportunity to lead evidence in Court. In my view, both the things cannot be urged at the same time either the respondent BSNL sticks to its stand that it is entitled to terminate the services without following the usual procedure of holding the enquiry, etc. or adopts the stand that an enquiry is contemplated. In my view, both the things cannot be urged at the same time either the respondent BSNL sticks to its stand that it is entitled to terminate the services without following the usual procedure of holding the enquiry, etc. or adopts the stand that an enquiry is contemplated. Having chosen to hold the enquiry without adhering to the basic principles of issuing a chargesheet, etc. and the said procedure having been found to be illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice by the Tribunal, it is now not open to the BSNL to contend that it should have been permitted to lead evidence in Court. In my view, there is no substance in the said contention of the respondent BSNL. The Tribunal also took into consideration the conditions applicable to a temporary employee of the BSNL which provide that a temporary employees services can be terminated by holding an enquiry into the misconduct alleged by giving him a reasonable opportunity. 11) However, in so far as the issue of regularization is concerned, that was an issue, which was not even referred to the Tribunal in the Reference order. It is also required to be noted that in the statement of claim what is sought by the petitioner workman is only reinstatement and continuity of service. Hence, in ordering regularization, the Tribunal has gone beyond the scope of Reference and the statement of claim as filed before it. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Meghe fairly accepts the said position. The said direction would therefore have to be quashed and set aside. 12) In so far as the aspect of the back wages is concerned, the Tribunal considered the fact that the petitioner had not averred that he was unemployed during the pendency of the Reference and in that view of the matter the Tribunal was of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served, if the back wages are denied to the petitioner workman. It is well settled that the grant or refusal of the back wages is within the discretion of the Tribunal to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in refusing the back wages cannot be faulted with. It is well settled that the grant or refusal of the back wages is within the discretion of the Tribunal to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in refusing the back wages cannot be faulted with. 13) In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition No.3055/2011 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. In so far as Writ Petition No.1721/2011, which is filed by the BSNL is concerned, the same is partly allowed to the extent that the direction of regularization issued in the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made partly absolute in the said writ petition in the said terms with parties to bear their respective costs. 14) It is expected that since sufficient time has already elapsed, the respondent BSNL would implement the Award in question as modified herein above within a period of one month from date.