JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - This Writ Application has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 19.12.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput in Industrial Dispute Case No. 57 of 1996 holding that the punishment of discharge from service imposed on the petitioner was legal and justified. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Field Man Demonstrator under Aska Co-operative Sugar Industries Ltd. opposite party No. 1 on 26.12.1969 and on successful completion of his probation period his services were confirmed w.e.f. 3.7.1971. Due to his sincere service and achievements in crushing of canes and enhancement of recovery, he was given promotion from time to time and lastly he was promoted on 20.2.1991 as Cane Development Assistant, which is a Clerical post It is stated that basing on some frivolous complaints of some farmers with regard to transaction of seed cane and fertilizer, the Managing Director of opposite party No. 1 suspended the petitioner from service w.e.f. 10.6.1994. It is further stated that such order of suspension was passed without giving any opportunity as well as without informing the petitioner with regard to the irregularities as alleged against him. On 2.8.1994 i.e. after about two months from the date of suspension of the petitioner, opposite party No. 1 issued the following Memorandum of Charges to the petitioner: 1. The petitioner had collected Rs. 105/- instead of Rs. 27/- from new Cane Growers as Nominal Membership Fees and he had not refunded the said amount to them in spite of direction. 2. The petitioner had shown lack of supervision resulting in payment of seeds cost to non-suppliers. 3. The petitioner had misappropriated the funds of industry. 4. The petitioner had not issued Debit Memos to the Growers immediately after distribution of fertilizers. 5. The petitioner had shown carelessness in submitting the Day Book relating to supply of fertilizer. In pursuance of the aforesaid Memorandum of Charges, the petitioner filed his explanation on 5.8.1994 denying all the charges levelled against him. As me petitioner was not paid his subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, he made a representation on 20.4.1995 to opposite party No. 1 praying for release of subsistence allowance, bonus and incentive dues in order to meet the medical expenses of his ailing father or to revoke the suspension order, but the same was not considered. As me petitioner was not paid his subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, he made a representation on 20.4.1995 to opposite party No. 1 praying for release of subsistence allowance, bonus and incentive dues in order to meet the medical expenses of his ailing father or to revoke the suspension order, but the same was not considered. It is stated that due to want of proper medical care, the father of the petitioner died on 28.9.1995. While the petitioner's representation for release of his arrear dues were pending before the authorities, opposite party No. 1 vide order dated 3.4.1996 discharged the petitioner from service. After receiving the order of discharge, the petitioner came to know that such order had been passed illegally on the basis of some papers, on which the Management had forcibly obtained the signature of the petitioner though the petitioner had not understood the contents of such documents which were written in English. It is stated that though the petitioner has filed a representation before opposite party No. 1 on 7.5.1996 requesting him to supply the documents on which his signatures had been obtained by the Management, the same was not considered. Challenging the illegal order of discharging him from service, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Asst. Labour Commissioner, Berhampur, which was dealt with by the Asst. Labour Officer, Aska. After issuance of a number of notices for conciliation, the Management of opposite party No. 1 did not take interest to appear before the Asst Labour Officer for conciliation. As a result of which the Asst. Labour Officer submitted a failure report on 21.8.1997 indicating about the existence of an Industrial Dispute. Thereafter the Industrial Dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput u/s 12(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act and it was numbered, as LD Case No. 57 of 1998. The petitioner also preferred a complaint before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 69(2) of Orissa Industrial Dispute Rules claiming for computation of his dues with regard to arrear subsistence allowance and house rent allowance, which was registered as LD Misc. Case No. 60 of 1997. Considering the case of the petitioner, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court by order dated 7.1.1999 held that the petitioner is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. Case No. 60 of 1997. Considering the case of the petitioner, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court by order dated 7.1.1999 held that the petitioner is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 32,867/- towards arrear of his subsistence allowance and house rent allowance. On coming to know about the award of the Labour Court in LD Misc. Case No. 60 of 1997, opposite party No. 1 issued a notice on 13.1.1999 to the petitioner claiming refund of an amount of Rs. 55,687.20 on the basis of the audit report. It is stated that the Management had not given any opportunity to the petitioner before holding him liable for such amount and has deliberately issued such refund notice with the mala fide intention of avoiding payment of the amount awarded by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner. As opposite party No. 1 delayed in making payment of the amount awarded in favour of the petitioner, he filed an application on 13.1999 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court for appropriate action in the matter. Thereafter the Labour Commissioner, Odisha by order dated 263.1999 directed the Management-opposite party No. 1 to pay the award amount of Rs. 32,867/- to the petitioner within thirty days. In pursuance of the said order the Management vide its letter dated 6.5.1999 asked the petitioner to submit a copy of the award dated 7.1.1999 enabling it to take necessary action. On 17.5.1999 the petitioner filed an application u/s 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Commissioner, Odisha claiming for recovery of the award amount from the Management By order dated 23.6.1999 the Labour Commissioner, Odisha directed opposite party No. 1 to pay the award amount of Rs. 32,867/- to the petitioner within thirty days, failing which the amount as directed to be realized through Certificate Proceeding. As opposite party No. 1 failed to pay the amount awarded in favour of the petitioner, the Labour Commissioner, Odisha vide order dtd. 28.9.2000 directed to issue a Requisition Certificate for recovery of the award amount from opposite party No. 1 under the Public Demand Recovery Act. The Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput passed the impugned award on 19.12.2000 in LD Case No. 58 of ' 1998 holding that the order dated 3.4.1996 passed by the Management-opposite party No. 1 discharging the petitioner from service is legal and justified. The Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput passed the impugned award on 19.12.2000 in LD Case No. 58 of ' 1998 holding that the order dated 3.4.1996 passed by the Management-opposite party No. 1 discharging the petitioner from service is legal and justified. Challenging the said award the petitioner has filed the present Writ Application. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court while passing the impugned award has not taken note of the documents filed by the petitioner showing that the excess amount alleged to have been collected by the petitioner over the Normal Membership Fees have already been returned to the cane growers. He further submitted that when the original Disciplinary Order has not imposed any punishment of recovery to be made from the petitioner, the Management subsequently in course of the proceeding of the Industrial Dispute could not have raised the plea of recovery. It is stated that the learned Labour Court while dealing with LD Case No. 57 of 1998 should not have interfered with the award passed in another proceeding i.e. LD Misc. Case No. 60 of 1997 u/s 33C(2) of the LD. Act pursuant to which a Certificate Proceeding was initiated at the instance of Labour Court on 28.9.2000. It is further stated that the learned Labour Court while dealing with LD Case No. 57 of 1998 under sections 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act should have confined itself to the question referred to it for adjudication i.e. "Whether the Discharge of the service of the petitioner by the Management is legal and or justified" but the learned Labour Court travelled beyond his jurisdiction in deciding the claim of the petitioner towards his arrear subsistence allowance, which has already been decided in a separate proceeding i.e. LD Misc. Case No. 60 of 1997. In view of the above, it is stated that the impugned award is liable to be set aside directing reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1-Management submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his, case by cross examining the Marshalling Officer and the petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceeding and also admitted guilt of all the charges levelled against him. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1-Management submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his, case by cross examining the Marshalling Officer and the petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceeding and also admitted guilt of all the charges levelled against him. He further submitted that considering the gravity of misconduct and in view of unsatisfactory past records of the petitioner, opposite party No. 1 by order dated 3.4.1996 discharged the petitioner from service. It is stated that the learned Labour Court after considering all the materials and the documents produced by the Management, has rightly passed the impugned award and the same may not be interfered with. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and going through the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner had preferred a complaint before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court u/s 35C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 69(2) of Orissa Industrial Dispute Rules claiming for computation of his dues with regard to arrear subsistence allowance and house rent allowance, which was registered as LD Misc. Case No. 60 of 1997 and the Presiding Officer, Labour Court considering the case of the petitioner by order dated 7.1.1999 held that the petitioner is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 32,867/- towards arrear of his subsistence allowance and house rent allowance. On coming to know about the award of the Labour Court in LD Misc. Case No. 60 of 1997, opposite party No. 1-Management issued a notice on, 13.1.1999 to the petitioner claiming refund of an amount of Rs. 55,687.20 on the basis of the audit report without initiating any proceeding against the petitioner and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner before holding him liable for refund of such amount. Though the said dispute was not adjudicated by any authority, the plea of opposite party No. 1-Management that the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner has been adjusted against the amount of Rs. 55,687.20 was accepted by the Labour Court. That apart no specific charge was also framed against the petitioner by the Management for misappropriation of the aforesaid amount on which basis the petitioner has been terminated from service. It further appears that in pursuance of the award passed in LD. Misc. Case No. 60 of 1997 by the Labour Court, Jeypore u/s 33C of the LD. That apart no specific charge was also framed against the petitioner by the Management for misappropriation of the aforesaid amount on which basis the petitioner has been terminated from service. It further appears that in pursuance of the award passed in LD. Misc. Case No. 60 of 1997 by the Labour Court, Jeypore u/s 33C of the LD. Act, the Labour Commissioner, Odisha vide order dtd. 23.6.1991 directed the opposite party No. 1-Management to pay a sum of Rs. 32,867/- to the petitioner towards his arrear subsistence allowance within thirty days, failing which necessary action as contemplated u/s 33C(1) of the LD Act shall be taken to realize the said amount by instituting Certificate Proceeding. However, the Management failed to comply the said direction, as a result of which the Labour Commissioner, Odisha vide order dated 28.9.2000 directed the Collector, Ganjam to initiate Certificate Proceeding against the opposite party No. 1-Management for realization of a sum of Rs. 32,867/-. In view of the above, the termination of the petitioner from service appears to be illegal and unreasonable. 5. In the case of Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh, held that when the termination of a workman is held illegal, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that the Supreme Court has not held as an absolute proposition that in cases of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement in all situations. It has always been the view of the Court that there could be circumstance(s) in a case which may make it inexpedient to order reinstatement. Hence, the normal rule that the dismissed workman is entitled to reinstatement in cases of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception. In view of the above settled position of law and as the termination of the petitioner was illegal and unreasonable, taking into consideration the nature of work and tenure of service rendered by the petitioner under opposite party No. 1-Management, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while modifying the impugned award dtd. 19.12.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput in LD. Case No. 57 of 1998 directs opposite party No. 1 Management to pay a sum of Rs. 19.12.2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jeypore, Koraput in LD. Case No. 57 of 1998 directs opposite party No. 1 Management to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) to the petitioner as compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service with full back wages, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. The Writ Application is accordingly disposed of. Final Result : Disposed Off