Order Aggrieved by order dated 8.10.2012 in WP(L) No. 2761 of 2012, passed by learned Single Judge, the appellant-Central Coalfields Ltd. has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-workman was working as Attendance Clerk Grade-II, at New Khas Seam of Pindra Colliery and was charge-sheeted on 23.7.1997 for assaulting one Virendra Singh, the Project Officer, Pindra Colliery. The respondent did not participate in the domestic enquiry and by order dated 5.9.1997 he was dismissed from service. An industrial dispute was raised by Reference No. 42 of 2010 to Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.I, Dhanbad. The learned Tribunal passed an award dated 30.12.2011 directing reinstatement of the workman with 75% back wages. The award was challenged by the appellant-CCL by filing the writ petition, which was dismissed by order dated 8.10.2012 holding that since the order of dismissal was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and, since, it is nobody's case that the workman was employed gainfully elsewhere, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded 75% back wages. Challenging order dated 8.10.2012, the appellant-CCL has approached this Court by filing the preset Letters Patent Appeal. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed supporting the impugned order dated 8.10.2013. It is stated that on 22.7.1997, it was one Virendra Singh, who had in fact assaulted the respondent-workman and without serving any show cause notice or charge-sheet, an enquiry was conducted and the respondent was dismissed from service vide order dated 5.9.1997. Alleging gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the respondent has tried to support the award made by the learned Tribunal and also the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit filed in the present proceeding, it is also stated that the workman/respondent was nowhere gainfully employed during the suspension period and the period from the date of dismissal to the date of superannuation. 4. We have heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant-CCL and Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent-workman and carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Relying on the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on 16.9.2011, Mr. 4. We have heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant-CCL and Mr. Yogendra Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent-workman and carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Relying on the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on 16.9.2011, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant-CCL has contended that once it is found that the enquiry held was fair and proper, the Tribunal's power to interfere with the order of dismissal is very limited and thus, the order of reinstatement and grant of back wages of 75% is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport vs. Vinod Kumar reported in (2008)1 SCC 115 . Learned counsel has further submitted that even if the case of the workman is accepted that the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the workman it would not result in automatic reinstatement of the appellant in service. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court h Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. reported in (1993)4 SCC 727 . 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman has submitted that since the enquiry was held in gross violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as neither the copy of the charge-sheet nor the enquiry report was furnished to the respondent-workman, the learned Tribunal has rightly ordered reinstatement of the workman with 75% back wages. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 8.10.2012 has considered this aspect of the matter in right prospective and has rightly dismissed the challenge of the appellant-CCL to the award dated 30.12.2011 of the industrial Tribunal. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent was dismissed from service vide order dated 5.9.1997 and he would have been superannuated from service with effect from 31.1.2011. A perusal of the award dated 30.12.2011 also discloses that the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding, that the enquiry held was fair and proper. 8. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman was charge-sheeted for assaulting a superior officer. A perusal of the award dated 30.12.2011 also discloses that the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding, that the enquiry held was fair and proper. 8. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman was charge-sheeted for assaulting a superior officer. From the materials brought on record, we do not find that a plea was taken by the respondent-workman that after 5.9.1997 he was not gainfully employed though, in the counter affidavit in paragraph 19 a statement to this effect has been made by the respondent-workman. Since the order of termination of the respondent-workman has been interfered with by the Tribunal by order dated 30.12.2011 and this has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 8.10.2012, we are not inclined to interfere with this part of the matter. If the plea raised by the respondent-workman that the order of dismissal suffers from violation of principles of natural justice is considered, the only consequence would be that the matter would be remitted back to the CCL to proceed in the matter after furnishing the copy of the enquiry report to the respondent-workman. However, since the respondent-workman has superannuated from service with effect from 31.1.2011 and after dismissal from service more than 17 years have passed, no useful purpose would be served by holding the inquiry afresh from the stage of supplying copy of the enquiry report. In that view of the matter, we are not remitting the matter back to the appellant-CCL. 9. Coming to the question of grant of back wages as awarded by the Tribunal, we find that the grant of back wages is not automatic and it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In "J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K.P. Agrawal and Another" reported in (2007)2 SCC 433 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the plea that where the order of dismissal or removal is set aside, the employee is entitled to full back wages. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "17. There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, "continuity of service" and "consequential benefits" should follow, as a matter of course. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "17. There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, "continuity of service" and "consequential benefits" should follow, as a matter of course. The disastrous effect of granting several promotions as a "consequential benefit" to a person who has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does not have the benefit of necessary experience for discharging the higher duties and functions of promotional posts, is seldom visualized while granting consequential benefits automatically. Whenever courts or tribunals direct reinstatement, they should apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances to decide whether "continuity of service" and/or "consequential benefits" should also be directed. We may in this behalf refer to the decisions of this Court in A.P. SRTC vs. S. Narsagoud, A.P.SRTC vs. Abdul Kareem and Rajasthan SRTC vs. Shyam Bihari Lai Gupta. " 10. In "G.M., Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh" reported in (2005)5 SCC 591 [: 2005(3) JLJR (SC)109], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no rule of thumb that in each and every case, where a finding is recorded by a Court or tribunal that the order of termination of service was illegal, an employee is entitled to full back wages. 11. Again, in "U.P. SRTC vs. Mithu Singh" reported in (2006)7 SCC 180 , a case in which a bus driver was reinstated in service after 30 long years and he had not shown any improvement in his conduct, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "16. Thus, entitlement of a workman to get reinstatement does not necessarily result in payment of back wages which would be independent of reinstatement. While dealing with the prayer of back wages, factual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate court/tribunal." 12. It is thus clear that no straightjacket formula can be evolved for grant of back wages to the workman. In the present case, even if the factual dispute with respect to review of charge memo and a fair opportunity to the respondent to participate in the enquiry are kept aside, it is not disputed that second show-cause notice was not issued to the respondent and thus the order of termination was bad. 13. In the present case, even if the factual dispute with respect to review of charge memo and a fair opportunity to the respondent to participate in the enquiry are kept aside, it is not disputed that second show-cause notice was not issued to the respondent and thus the order of termination was bad. 13. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts brought on record, we are of the view that it would serve ends of justice if the grant of 75% back wages to the respondent workman is modified to 50%. The Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed and the award of 75% back wages is reduced to 50%. The modified back wages of 50%, payable to the respondent-workman, be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. I.A. No. 5960 of 2013 By way of filing this Interlocutory Application and supplementary affidavit to the Interlocutory Application, the appellant-CCL has brought to the notice of this Court that during pendency of this appeal, the respondent has filed L.C. Case No. 12 of 2013 under 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for prosecuting the appellant-CCL for non-grant of award. In view of the order passed by this Court in the main appeal, this Interlocutory Application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned Court that on production of a copy of order passed by this Court and compliance of the order by the appellant-CCL, it would take notice of the same and pass appropriate order.