ORDER In this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award dated 31st March, 2011 rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1. Dhanbad, whereby learned Tribunal has held that the action of the Management in not allowing Shri B.K. Prasad Dispatch Clerk to resume his duty w.e.f. 01.12.1983 is not justified and hence the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages w.e.f. 01.12.1983 till the date of his superannuation. 2. The Award has been challenged mainly on the ground that though learned Tribunal has held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper it has interfered with the punishment order. 3. Mr. Mehta learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that once learned Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper it cannot sit in appeal over the finding recorded by the domestic enquiry. He further submitted that the direction of the full back wages cannot be made in mechanical manner in absence of a finding that the concerned workman was not gainfully employed. It has been further submitted that the term of reference was as to whether the action of the Management of P.B. Area in not allowing Shri B.K. Prasad. Dispatch Clerk to resume his duty w.e.f. 01.12.1983 is justified and if not, to what relief the workman is entitled but learned Tribunal while holding that the action of the Management of P.B. Area was not justified also held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages w.e.f. 01.12.1983 and other consequential benefits. Learned counsel submitted that after holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper learned Tribunal should not have interfered with the impugned order of punishment. Learned counsel further submitted that Tribunal has acted as a Court of appeal and has reviewed the entire matter and has made the Award on erroneous consideration of facts and law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh v. Management of Usha Breco Limited & Anr., reported in (2008) 5 SCC 554 . Learned counsel submitted that while recording its finding learned Tribunal has mainly swayed by non-service of second show-cause notice before passing the order of termination/dismissal. But only because second show-cause notice was not issued order of termination/dismissal cannot be held to be illegal. Learned counsel submitted that while recording its finding learned Tribunal has mainly swayed by non-service of second show-cause notice before passing the order of termination/dismissal. But only because second show-cause notice was not issued order of termination/dismissal cannot be held to be illegal. Learned counsel referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 415 . He submitted that learned Tribunal has also committed an error in directing reinstatement of the concerned workman with full back wages w.e.f. 01.12.1933 and other consequential benefits till the date of his superannuation. It has been submitted' that the full back wages cannot be awarded unless the concerned workman stated on record that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere. 5. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents. It has been submitted that the concerned workman met with an accident and due to the said reason he could not attend his duty and informed his Management and requested to grant sick leave, but no order was passed on his application. After recovery he reported for duty on 01.12.1983 but he was not allowed to join and no reason whatsoever was assigned for not accepting his joining. By that time there was no departmental proceeding nor there was any order of any competent authority preventing the concerned workman from joining his duty. The action of the management in not allowing the concerned workman to join his duty was, thus, wholly unjustified. The Management, after keeping silence for several years, issued a charge-sheet dated 5.5.1989. No reason was mentioned therein as to why the decision for initiating departmental enquiry was taken after five years. The concerned workman was neither allowed to join his duty nor any reason was assigned for several years and he had to suffer mental agony and harassment. The said action of the Management was wholly arbitrary and illegal and prejudicial to the concerned workman. In order to cover up the said prejudicial act, the Management initiated a proceeding and concluded the same by passing, an order of termination of the concerned workman even without giving him second show-cause notice or any opportunity to represent against the decision of the termination. The said facts are not disputed by the Management. In order to cover up the said prejudicial act, the Management initiated a proceeding and concluded the same by passing, an order of termination of the concerned workman even without giving him second show-cause notice or any opportunity to represent against the decision of the termination. The said facts are not disputed by the Management. Learned Tribunal considered the same and held that the action of the Management in not allowing the concerned workman to resume his duty w.e.f. 01.12.1983 is not justified. Learned Tribunal has .also granted consequential benefits and directed for his reinstatement with full back wages w.e.f. 01.12.1983. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the concerned workman, submitted that from the said admitted fact, it is evident that the concerned workman offered himself, for work immediately after his recovery, but he was not allowed to join his duty, by the Management and no reason was shown for not allowing him to join. There was no order of termination or dismissal at that time nor there was any justification for not allowing the concerned workman to join. Initiation of proceeding after about five years was deliberate and malicious. The said facts have been duly considered by learned Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances, no further evidence was required to be adduced on behalf of the workman. He had offered himself for work but he was prevented from working illegally without any decision by the Management. The matter was kept hanging for several years before the Management took a decision to initiate departmental proceeding in 1989. There is no illegality in the Award of learned Tribunal in holding that the action of the Management is not justified and that the workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. Learned Tribunal recorded its finding after due consideration of the facts and materials on record and the award requires no interference by this Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts and materials on record. On perusal of the Award I find that learned Tribunal has considered the facts and evidences in detail and has come to the conclusion that the action of the Management in not allowing the concerned workman to resume his duty w.e.f. 01.12.1983 was not justified. On perusal of the Award I find that learned Tribunal has considered the facts and evidences in detail and has come to the conclusion that the action of the Management in not allowing the concerned workman to resume his duty w.e.f. 01.12.1983 was not justified. Learned Tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant facts including the initiation of proceeding against the concerned workman after about five years without assigning any reason and without showing any justification for not allowing the concerned workman to resume his duty before such decision. Learned Tribunal has observed that the action of the Management was prejudicial to the concerned workman. Learned Tribunal has further held that the second show-cause notice was not issued to the concerned workman before passing the order of termination. On that basis learned Tribunal has held that the concerned workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. 8. From the record I find that reference was as to whether the action of the Management in not allowing Shri B.K. Prasad. Dispatch Clerk to resume his duty w.e.f. 01.12.1983 is justified. If not to what relief the workman is entitled? The main consideration before learned Tribunal was as to whether the Management was justified in not allowing to resume his duty w.e.f. 01.12.1983. In order to show justification the Management has come with the plea that he was not allowed because there was departmental proceeding against him in which he was subsequently terminated. 9. Admittedly the concerned, workman had offered himself for duty w.e.f. 01.12.1983 when there was no departmental proceeding or any order passed by any competent authority preventing the concerned workman from joining his duty. After several years the Management issued a charge-sheet on 5.5.1989 and proceeding was initiated against the concerned workman. That culminated into termination of the concerned workman. Learned Tribunal thus had to answer as to whether the action of the Management in not allowing the concerned workman to resume his duty w.e.f. 01.12.1983 was justified? The Management had taken plea of initiation of departmental proceeding but the departmental proceeding was initiated after several years and as such there was no justification for not allowing the concerned workman to join his duty w.e.f. 01.12.1983. 10. The Management had taken plea of initiation of departmental proceeding but the departmental proceeding was initiated after several years and as such there was no justification for not allowing the concerned workman to join his duty w.e.f. 01.12.1983. 10. Learned Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances and evidences on record has held that not allowing the concerned workman to join his duty and initiation of departmental proceeding and terminating his services even .without issuing second show-cause notice was not justified. 11. Since the concerned workman had offered himself for work and he was not allowed to join his duty and learned Tribunal has answered that the action in not allowing the concerned workman to join his duty was unjustified. I find no arbitrariness in the Award holding that the concerned workman was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 12. The decisions rendered in the case of Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh (supra) and in the case of, S.K. Singh (supra) are on entirely different facts situation. It has absolutely no application to the facts of the instant case. The said decision are of no help to the petitioner. 13. For the reasons aforesaid I find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned Award. 14. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.