JUDGMENT By Court: In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure-4) rendered by learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 310/2000 whereby learned Tribunal has answered the said reference against the Management directing reinstatement of the concerned workman in service holding him entitled to get 75% back wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of superannuation. 2. The said reference was a result of a dispute between the concerned workman-respondent and the Management-petitioner arising out of an allegation that the concerned workman (Basdeo Kumhar) is an employee of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited, but he was being impersonated by one Ram Janam Yadav. 3. The short fact of the case is that Basdeo Kumhar was appointed in the service of the respondents on 17.10.1971 as Night Guard. He was working as such in Burragarh Colliery. An imposter, namely, Ram Janam Yadav somehow started working in the name of Basdeo Kumhar. When the said fact was detected by the Management, Basdeo Kumhar was asked to produce the certificate to establish his genuineness. The workman did not submit any document. The concerned workman was called upon to produce certificate on 2.1.1992, but he again failed to do so. The Management, thereafter, issued a charge sheet to the concerned workman by Letter No. 41 dated 16.1.1992 imputing the charges of wilful in-subordination / disobedience of lawful order of higher authority and giving false information regarding his particulars for the purpose of employment concealing the facts of the previous employment, age and other particulars required by the Company. The charge sheet was issued under the provisions of Clause 26.1.10 and 16.1.12 of the Certified Standing Orders of the company. On receipt of the charge sheet, the concerned workman submitted his written explanation. The same was not found satisfactory and the Management decided to conduct domestic enquiry into the charges. In the meanwhile, one K.B. Singh, the then Security Inspector, Bhalgora Area, was also asked to conduct a confidential enquiry in order to ascertain the correctness of the identity of Basdeo Kumhar. After enquiry, the report was submitted confirming the allegation that Basdeo Kumhar was being impersonated by Ram Janam Yadav. In the domestic enquiry, the Management examined K. B. Singh as M.W. Opportunity was given to the concerned workman to cross-examine the witnesses of the Management and led his own evidence. After enquiry, the report was submitted confirming the allegation that Basdeo Kumhar was being impersonated by Ram Janam Yadav. In the domestic enquiry, the Management examined K. B. Singh as M.W. Opportunity was given to the concerned workman to cross-examine the witnesses of the Management and led his own evidence. The concerned workman took part in the enquiry and put his L.T.I on the papers of the proceeding. The enquiry officer, thereafter, submitted enquiry report and on the basis of the said report, the disciplinary authority, by order contained in Letter No. BCCL/BA/BGH/92/Dismissal/1194 dated 18.11.1992, dismissed the concerned workman. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute through the Union. On failure of conciliation, a report was submitted to the appropriate Government and appropriate Government by its order dated 18.10.2000 referred the dispute to learned Tribunal in the following manner: “Whether the action of the Management of M/S B.C.C.L in dismissing Shri Basdeo Kumhar @ Shri Basdeo Yadav, Night Guard, Burragarh Colliery, is legal and justified in law, if not, what reliefs the workman are entitled to get ?” 5. On receipt of the reference, the same was registered as Reference Case No. 310/2000 before learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad. 6. Notices were issued to the parties. The concerned workman and the Management appeared. 7. The concerned workman, in his written statement, inter alia, stated that he was made victim by the Management by issuing a frivolous charge sheet and he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the domestic enquiry. The allegation that he was impersonated by one Ram Janam Yadav, is wholly baseless. No other person in the name of Basdeo Kumhar was ever produced to establish that the concerned workman is fictitious person. There is no material on record in support of the finding arrived at in the domestic enquiry. Copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and he was not given reasonable opportunity to file any reply against the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority had also not given second opportunity to the delinquent by serving a show cause after holding him guilty of the charges. There was violation of the principle of natural justice. The finding of the enquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary authority are wholly arbitrary, whimsical and illegal. The punishment awarded is wholly unjust. 8. The disciplinary authority had also not given second opportunity to the delinquent by serving a show cause after holding him guilty of the charges. There was violation of the principle of natural justice. The finding of the enquiry officer and the order of the disciplinary authority are wholly arbitrary, whimsical and illegal. The punishment awarded is wholly unjust. 8. The Management appeared and filed its written statement stating, inter alia, that the enquiry was made against the concerned workman after serving the charge sheet. The enquiry was duly conducted. One K. B. Singh, the then Security Officer, Bhalgora Area, was also deputed by the Management for a confidential enquiry in order to ascertain the correctness of the identity of Basdeo Kumhar. The said K. B. Singh went to the native village of Basdeo Kumhar, inquired from his mother and other villagers and also showed photograph of the concerned workman. The villagers identified the concerned workman as Ram Janam Yadav. On the basis of the said report of K. B. Singh and other evidences, the charges against the concerned workman were established and, accordingly, he was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. 9. Learned Tribunal while deciding the preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the domestic enquiry, held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. 10. Learned Tribunal, thereafter, heard the parties on other issues. In course of hearing, the Management examined one Chandraket Narain Singh, Personal Manager of Dobari Colliery of Bastacola Area as MW-1. The said witness also proved the documents -Exts. M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4 & M-5. On behalf of the concerned workman, Basdev Kumhar was himself examined as W.W-1 and produced caste certificate, application dated 5.8.1987, certificate granted by the Chhetrya Panchayat, Rajmanpur. He also produced voter list dated 29.7.1996, letter dated 24.8.1993 of Abho Devi (Ex-M.L.A) and other documents. 11. After appraisal of the evidences and hearing both the parties, learned Tribunal recorded his finding and rendered the impugned award holding that the action of the Management in dismissing the concerned workman from the service w.e.f 18.11.1992 is not justified. Hence the concerned workman deserves to be reinstated in service. However, Tribunal held that as the concerned workman has already crossed the age of superannuation in the year 2005, he is entitled to get only 75% back wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of superannuation. 12. Hence the concerned workman deserves to be reinstated in service. However, Tribunal held that as the concerned workman has already crossed the age of superannuation in the year 2005, he is entitled to get only 75% back wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of superannuation. 12. In this writ petition, the said award has been challenged by the Management – petitioner on the following grounds: (i) The dispute was raised after lapse of about six years from the date of dismissal and on this ground alone the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. (ii) In deciding the preliminary issue, learned Tribunal has held that the domestic enquiry fair and proper and reappraisal of the evidences and coming to a conclusion different from the enquiry officer is not permissible; (iii) Though the concerned workman has claimed that a copy of the enquiry report has not been served, he has not made out a case that non-service of the enquiry report has caused him any prejudice. (iv) Second show cause which was not required to be served in view of the amendment in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. (v) Award of 75% of back wages to the concerned workman is not based on any discussion of the materials on record. 13. Mr. A. K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that though there is no period of limitation or universal formula for fixing any time for seeking the reference, six years period cannot be held to be reasonable period for entertaining the reference. Learned Tribunal without considering the long lapse of time has erroneously entertained the respondent’s claim and granted relief by the impugned award. 14. Learned counsel contended that full opportunity was given to the concerned workman in course of the domestic enquiry and considering the same, learned Tribunal, while deciding the preliminary issue, had also held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. Once the said finding was recorded, learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to reconsider as to whether the findings of domestic enquiry were correct or sustainable. In such cases, learned Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, can only consider as to whether on the charges proved, the punishment awarded is reasonable. Once the said finding was recorded, learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to reconsider as to whether the findings of domestic enquiry were correct or sustainable. In such cases, learned Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, can only consider as to whether on the charges proved, the punishment awarded is reasonable. Learned counsel placed his reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in West Bokaro Colliery (Tisco Ltd.) Vs. Ram Pravesh Singh [ (2008) 3 SCC 729 ]. 15. Supporting the grounds of the Management, learned counsel submitted that the punishment awarded by the Management in the domestic enquiry cannot be held to be bad and illegal only on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report was not served on the delinquent and that he was not given any opportunity to file reply to that. Learned counsel submitted that the requirement of doctrine of natural justice is not of general application in all cases and an order cannot be held to be bad only on that ground unless any prejudice is shown to have been caused by not serving a copy of the enquiry report. In order to fortify the said contentions, learned counsel placed his reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Mann Vs. Director of Education (Basic) & Ors. [ (2006) 7 SCC 558 ]. 16. Learned counsel contended that the order of dismissal also cannot be held to be bad on the ground that second show cause was not issued after holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. That requirement was mandatory in view of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which has been subsequently amended by virtue of 42nd Constitution Amendment. Learned counsel submitted that there was no legal ground for interference with the punishment order awarded by the disciplinary authority after holding the domestic enquiry fair and proper and the impugned award rendered by learned Tribunal is wholly erroneous, unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. 17. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the award of 75% back wages is also arbitrary and unsustainable. The said direction has been given without any discussion and consideration of the materials on record and also without considering that the dispute was raised after six years. 17. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the award of 75% back wages is also arbitrary and unsustainable. The said direction has been given without any discussion and consideration of the materials on record and also without considering that the dispute was raised after six years. Learned counsel submitted that the concerned workman is entitled to get back wages, if there is any material on record to show that he was not gainfully employed during the period for which the back wages was claimed. Onus is on the workman to plead and prove the same and in absence thereof, the workman is not entitled to get any back wages. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Talwar Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd. Vs. Sushil Kumar [ (2008) 9 SCC 486 ]. 18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent workman, on the other hand, supported the impugned award. It has been, inter alia, submitted that learned Tribunal has considered the facts and materials on record in detail and has come to the conclusion that the punishment awarded to the respondent was arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principle of natural justice. Learned Tribunal has not given any finding contrary to the law or the facts and materials on record. It has also not reappraised the evidences, as alleged by the petitioner and has not interfered with the domestic enquiry. Learned Tribunal after due consideration of facts and materials on record has held that the punishment of dismissal has been awarded without taking into consideration that Dasrath Singh, who is said to be the complainant, was not examined to support the complaint and other important witnesses have also not been examined and there was no sufficient material on record to award punishment of dismissal to the concerned workman. Learned Tribunal has further taken into consideration that copy of the enquiry report was also not served on the concerned workman before awarding him punishment of dismissal and non-service of a copy of the enquiry report is violative of the principles of natural justice. On that basis learned Tribunal has rightly held that the action of the Management in dismissing the concerned workman from service is not justified and has rightly directed the Management to reinstate the concerned workman in service. On that basis learned Tribunal has rightly held that the action of the Management in dismissing the concerned workman from service is not justified and has rightly directed the Management to reinstate the concerned workman in service. Since the concerned workman was superannuated during pendency of the reference in the year 2005, learned Tribunal has awarded only 75% of the back wages from the date of his dismissal till the date of superannuation as the only relief to the concerned workman. It has been submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Talwar Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd., supra, has been rendered in different fact situation. In the said case, full back wages was awarded by learned Labour Court. In the instant case, being conscious of the said principle of law, learned Tribunal has not awarded full back wages and has awarded only part back wages. There is, thus, no illegality in awarding 75% back wages by learned Tribunal. 19. So far as the delay in raising dispute is concerned, there is no strait jacket formula fixing any time frame for raising a dispute. In the instant case, the said objection was not pressed by the Management before learned Tribunal and since there is no fixed time limit for entertaining a reference, the impugned award cannot be held to be bad only because the reference was made after six years, as alleged by the Management. 20. The objection of the petitioner -Management regarding reappraisal of the evidences, in spite of holding the domestic enquiry as fair and proper while deciding preliminary issue, is also unfounded. Learned Tribunal has not reappraised the evidences and has not substituted its own opinion. Learned Tribunal has held that the punishment of dismissal was awarded without taking into consideration that the main witness, on whose complaint the charge sheet was issued, was not examined and other material evidences were also not adduced; and that copy of the enquiry report was not served on the workman and he was not given opportunity to file his reply. 21. So far as the prejudice part is concerned, learned Tribunal has thoroughly considered that the concerned workman is an illiterate person and that his L.T.I was taken on the papers during the proceeding of the enquiry and even a copy of the enquiry report was not served on him giving him any opportunity to file his reply. 21. So far as the prejudice part is concerned, learned Tribunal has thoroughly considered that the concerned workman is an illiterate person and that his L.T.I was taken on the papers during the proceeding of the enquiry and even a copy of the enquiry report was not served on him giving him any opportunity to file his reply. 22. Learned Tribunal has considered the facts and circumstances and found that how the concerned workman was prejudiced in absence of observance of the principles of natural justice. The decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Mann, supra, is, thus, not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 23. Having heard learned counsel, I have considered the facts and materials on record and submissions of learned counsel and perused the impugned award of learned Tribunal, I find much substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent. 24. It is well established that there is no strait jacket formula creating any fixed period of limitation for reference of an industrial dispute. The said objection was also not seriously taken by the Management before learned Tribunal. On going through the impugned award of learned Tribunal, I find that learned Tribunal has not entered into a fresh appraisal of the evidences, recorded in course of the domestic enquiry. Learned Tribunal has held that the order of dismissal has been erroneously passed without taking into consideration that the complainant and the other material witness, who were competent witnesses, were not produced in course of enquiry. But that was not taken into consideration while awarding punishment of dismissal to the concerned workman. 25. Learned Tribunal after detailed discussions has also come to the finding that the violation of principle of natural justice vitiated the enquiry report and the order of punishment awarded by the Management. 26. Admittedly, a copy of the enquiry report was not served on the concerned workman and he could not get any opportunity to file his reply. The concerned workman is an illiterate person and claimed to have put his L.T.I on the papers in course of the domestic enquiry. Learned Tribunal has taken into consideration those facts and circumstances while coming to the findings that there was violation of the principle of natural justice and that vitiates the order of punishment. 27. The concerned workman is an illiterate person and claimed to have put his L.T.I on the papers in course of the domestic enquiry. Learned Tribunal has taken into consideration those facts and circumstances while coming to the findings that there was violation of the principle of natural justice and that vitiates the order of punishment. 27. So far as challenge to the award of 75% of back wages in absence of any material or document on record showing that the concerned workman was not gainful employee is concerned, there is no such provision of law or settled formula providing that even for awarding some percentage of back wages, learned Tribunal has to see as to whether the concerned workman was gainfully employed. The decision of the Supreme Court, which has been cited on this point, does not indicate any such legal requirement for awarding back wages in percentage. That requirement has been said to be for awarding the full back wages. 28. For the reasons aforementioned, I find no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned award and any ground made out to interfere with the same. 29. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 30. However, there is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.