JUDGMENT:- 1. Both the writ petitions are directed against the same award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai (for short, "the CGIT") in I.D.No.417 of 2001, dated 5.6.2006. 2. W.P.No.736 of 2008 is filed by the Management of M/s. Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited challenging that portion of the award wherein and by which the CGIT granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and other attendant benefits and W.P.No.23508 of 2008 is filed by the workman challenging that portion of the award wherein and by which he was denied the back-wages for the aforesaid period. The first writ petition was admitted on 9.1.2008 and the second writ petition was admitted on 25.9.2008. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as the "management" and "workman", as the case may be. 4. Mr. M.R. Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the management informed this Court that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the workman has been reinstated in service without prejudice to the outcome of the writ petition, but however on such reinstatement, he continued in service and also retired from service during the pendency of the writ petition. 5. It is the case of the workman that he joined the service of the management during the year 1971. He was transferred from the Mines Section to Auto Garage Section as Mazdoor. It is the stand of the management that the workman misbehaved with the Mines Manager when he was discussing certain issues with the workmen and Foreman. The workman was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet was given to him on 16.3.1994. He submitted his explanation on 18.3.1994. A domestic enquiry was conducted against the workman. It is upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 15.4.1994 the workman was dismissed from service after issuing a show cause notice. 6. The workman raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central) and the Conciliation Officer, as he could not bring about mediation, gave his failure report to the Central Government. The Central Government, through the Ministry of Labour, vide order dated 27.12.1996 referred an issue for adjudication. The reference made to the CGIT reads as follows: "Whether the action of the management of TANMAG in terminating the services of Shri I. Krishnan, T.No.707 is just, proper and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 7. The Central Government, through the Ministry of Labour, vide order dated 27.12.1996 referred an issue for adjudication. The reference made to the CGIT reads as follows: "Whether the action of the management of TANMAG in terminating the services of Shri I. Krishnan, T.No.707 is just, proper and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" 7. The said dispute was taken on file by CGIT as I.D.No.417 of 2001 and notice was issued to both parties. The workman filed claim statement on 13.6.1997. The management filed a counter statement on 19.11.1997. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was let in by the parties. The workman filed ten documents which were marked as Exx.W1 to W10 and on the side of the management, the enquiry proceedings and report were filed which were marked as Exx.M1 and M2. 8. The CGIT on analysis of the evidence placed before it came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the workman was vitiated. Along with the show cause notice the workman was not given the enquiry report, and thereby he was handicapped in giving an effective reply to the enquiry proceedings. The CGIT also held that in the light of any lack of opportunity, the workman was handicapped in giving an effective reply and was thereby prejudiced. The workman was also not allowed to examine his own witness and hence, it held that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the charges are not proved. 9. It must be noted that in the counter statement filed by the management, the management did not reserve any liberty for leading fresh evidence in case the enquiry was held to be vitiated. In the absence of such a plea made by the management, there is no obligation for the CGIT to grant opportunity to the management. 10. The Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lakhsmidevamma (Smt.) and another, [2001] 5 SCC 433 has held that in the absence of an employer seeking any opportunity, there is no obligation for the Labour Court to grant opportunity to lead evidence. 11. This Court finds that there is no case made out to interfere with the order of the CGIT in that regard and hence, W.P.No.736 of 2008 is dismissed. 12. 11. This Court finds that there is no case made out to interfere with the order of the CGIT in that regard and hence, W.P.No.736 of 2008 is dismissed. 12. Insofar as the denial of back-wages is concerned, in normal circumstances, the Labour Court when once it finds that the charges are not proved awards reinstatement with full back-wages. But unfortunately, in this case the CGIT denied back-wages by stating that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was no case made out for grant of back-wages. That is a very wrong approach on the part of the CGIT for denial of back-wages. The CGIT should have assigned some reason, namely: that the punishment was interfered under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, there is a deprivation of back-wages; or in the alternative that the workman is a temporary or ad hoc worker; or in the alternative the workman was gainfully employed during the said period. In the present case, no such reason has been adduced by the Labour Court. But having regard to the fact that the management reinstated the workman and also allowed him to retire from service, this Court is of the opinion that the workman is entitled to 25% of back-wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. W.P.No.23508 of 2008 stands allowed to the extent indicated above. In the result, W.P.No.736 of 2008 is dismissed and W.P.No.23508 of 2008 is allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties are allowed to bear their own costs.