JUDGMENT : Ajay Tewari, J. Both the petitions are connected and are being disposed of by common order since the petitioner and the respondent are the same and-cause of action in both the cases are related. In the first petition i.e. CWP No. 16515 of 1995, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') has challenged the award (Annexure P-1) whereby the respondent No.2-workman has been reinstated into service with continuity of service alongwith 50% of the back wages. 2. In the second petition i.e. CWP No. 12293 of 2013, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'Workman') has challenged the action of the respondents in not granting him pension on the ground that he did not opt for it at the relevant time. The case set up in this petition is that on the date when the option was to be exercised the petitioner-workman was out of job (despite the reinstatement order passed by the Labour Court) and after he was reinstated he was not offered the option. It is also necessary to be mentioned here that in this petition none has appeared on behalf of the respondents-PRTC despite service. Consequently, the respondents are proceeded against ex-parte. 3. Coming back to the first case, it was alleged that the bus on which the respondent No. 2-workman was working as Conductor had taken Rs. 25.70 paise from the passengers and had not issued tickets to them thereof. He was charge-sheeted and regular inquiry was ordered. The inquiry officer found him not guilty. The disciplinary authority had however without recording any reasons why it was differing with the inquiry officer and without remanding the matter back to the inquiry officer with a disagreement note ordered a de novo inquiry. In that inquiry the respondent No. 2-workman was found guilty and his services were terminated. The Labour Court held that the action of the disciplinary authority in marking a de novo inquiry without recording any disagreement note was illegal and also on merits held that the second inquiry officer had taken a biased view on the entire evidence. It consequently ordered reinstatement with 50% back-wages. When the petitioner-Corporation came to this Court by way of the instant writ petition the award was stayed subject to the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. It consequently ordered reinstatement with 50% back-wages. When the petitioner-Corporation came to this Court by way of the instant writ petition the award was stayed subject to the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Rather than paying him the wages last drawn the petitioner-Corporation reinstated him in service in the year 1995 and he continued working there till his retirement on 31.01.2012 and superannuated as Inspector. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-workman has relied upon the judgment in the matter of K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- 11. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiry Officer or Officers does not appeal to the disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its conclusion under Rule 9. 12. In our view the rules do not contemplate an action such as was taken by the Collector on February 13, 1962. It seems to us that the Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure adopted was not only not warranted by the rules but was harassing to the appellant. 5. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the award of the Labour Court. Apart therefrom the very fact that the petitioner-Corporation reinstated the respondent No. 2-workman and took work from him from 17 long years and permitted him to superannuate can not now be heard to say that the award should be set aside. 6. Consequently, the petition bearing CWP No. 16515 of 1995 is dismissed. Apart therefrom the very fact that the petitioner-Corporation reinstated the respondent No. 2-workman and took work from him from 17 long years and permitted him to superannuate can not now be heard to say that the award should be set aside. 6. Consequently, the petition bearing CWP No. 16515 of 1995 is dismissed. The petitioner-Corporation is directed to compute 50% back-wages awarded by the Labour Court and pay the same to the respondent No. 2-workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the respondent No. 2-workman would be entitled to claim the same with interest @ 8% p.a. from today till the date of payment. 7. Coming back to the facts of the second petition, the claim of the petitioner-workman for pension had been denied on the ground that he did not opt in time for the same within the stipulated date viz., 14.12.1992. It is the case of the petitioner-workman that at that time the petitioner-workman was out of job (having been reinstated only in the year 1995) and, after reinstatement option was never sought from him. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner-workman have relied upon the judgment of his Court in the matter of Dharam Pal Deshwal v. Chaudhary Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and another, passed in CWP No. 868 of 2009, decided on 04.11.2009, wherein this Court has held as follows:- After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. It is the admitted position that from 30.9.1994 to 21.3.2006, the petitioner remained out of job. The Civil Court has set aside the order of his removal being illegal and void ab initio, and he was ordered to be re-instated in service with full back wages. In pursuance of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, the petitioner was re-instated in service. During the time, the petitioner was out of job, three circulars were issued by the respondent University, providing fresh opportunities to its employees to change their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. Concededly, two of the employees have availed the said opportunities and changed their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. The petitioner, being not in service at that time, was not in a position to avail those three opportunities. Concededly, two of the employees have availed the said opportunities and changed their option from CPF to Pension Scheme. The petitioner, being not in service at that time, was not in a position to avail those three opportunities. He was not at fault. It is because of his illegal removal by the respondents that he could not avail those opportunities. For that illegal act of the respondent University, the petitioner cannot be penalised and the respondents cannot be permitted to say that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to change his option under the aforesaid three circulars................. Firstly, the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily terminated the services of the petitioner and subsequently, when he was re-instated by the Civil Court, they have illegally and arbitrarily denied the due opportunity to the petitioner to change his option and get the benefit of Pension Scheme, being a retired employee....... 8. I find myself in respectful agreement with the said judgment. Consequently, the petition bearing CWP No. 12293 of 2013 is allowed. The respondents-Corporation are directed to work out the pensionary benefits of the petitioner-workman and pay the same to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner-workman would be entitled to claim the same with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date/s the amount/s fell due till payment. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.