JUDGMENT : PARESH UPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for the workman and Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for the employer. 2. Challenge in these two petitions is made to the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No. 820 of 2008, dated 07.09.2013, whereby the workman is granted lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. 3. Special Civil Application No. 4134 of 2014 is filed by the concerned workman challenging the award, contending that, after having found that discontinuance of service of the workman was illegal, the Labour Court ought to have awarded reinstatement with full back wages and the moulding of relief by awarding lump-sum compensation is illegal. The employer has also, subsequently, challenged the same award in Special Civil Application No. 6417 of 2014 contending that even compensation ought not to have been awarded. 4. Rule in Special Civil Application No. 4134 of 2014. Mr. Shukla waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent employer. 5.1 Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the employer has submitted that, the workman was found in drunken condition and he was dismissed vide order dated 19.08.1998 and ultimately, if the Labour Court was of the view that the said termination was unsustainable, opportunity ought to have been given to the employer to lead evidence to prove the charge against the workman. Having not done so, the Labour Court has committed illegality and therefore, the same needs to be interfered with by this Court. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in support of this submission: (i) The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227 (1) (ii) M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Workmen Employed Represented by Firestone Tyre Employees Union, AIR 1981 SC 1626 (iii) Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. vs. A.B. Zodge, (1996) 4 SCC 374 5.2. Mr. of India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227 (1) (ii) M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Workmen Employed Represented by Firestone Tyre Employees Union, AIR 1981 SC 1626 (iii) Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. vs. A.B. Zodge, (1996) 4 SCC 374 5.2. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the employer has further submitted that, the compensation as awarded by the Labour Court, though was already attempted to be given by the employer to the workman, it was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the employer and therefore, the attempt on the part of the employer to comply with the award, may not come in the way of the employer, in challenging the same award. It is submitted that the compensation is however not accepted by the workman. It is submitted that the impugned award be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the workman has submitted that, the dismissal order dated 19.08.1998 was solely based on the conviction in a criminal case, however subsequently, the said conviction came to be set aside by this Court and therefore the very basis of the termination order did not exist, and except the said termination dated 19.08.1998, there was no proceeding initiated against the workman. It is submitted that soon after the conviction having been set aside by this Court, the workman had attempted to join service, which was not allowed by the employer and therefore representation was also made, which was also not responded and therefore, legal notice was issued, which was also not responded and therefore, the workman had moved the labour machinery. It is submitted that the Labour Court has given cogent reasons as to how the action of the employer of not permitted the workman to resume duty was illegal. It is submitted that, there is no infirmity in the said finding of the Labour Court and therefore the workman ought to have been reinstated in service, but Labour Court has, by not doing so, committed illegality, and to that extent this Court may interfere. On behalf of the workman, attention of this is invited to Para-6 of the impugned award to contend that, what is being argued before this Court by the employer is inconsistent with the record. On behalf of the workman, attention of this is invited to Para-6 of the impugned award to contend that, what is being argued before this Court by the employer is inconsistent with the record. It is submitted that the petition filed by the employer be dismissed and that of the workman be allowed. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 7.1 The employer had passed an office order on 02.07.1996 placing the workman under suspension on the ground that, on 01.07.1996, he was found in drunken condition, for which criminal case was filed against him and pending criminal investigation/trial, he was placed under suspension. The said criminal investigation culminated into Criminal Case No. 2552 of 1996 and the workman was tried before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, wherein he was convicted vide judgment dated 06.08.1998 for the offence punishable under Section 66(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and was sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-. The said conviction and sentence was challenged before the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad by filing an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1998, however, the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 04.01.1999. Against the said decision, the convict-workman had approached this Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 40 of 1999, which came to be allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 13.07.2007. The operative part of the said judgment reads as under: “7. In the result, this Criminal Revision Application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 6.8.1998 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 2552 of 1996 as also the judgment and order dated 4.1.1999 passed by the Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 1998 confirming the same are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.” 7.2. Thus, the very foundation of the dismissal order dated 19.08.1998 did not exist on and from 13.07.2007. The employer had not initiated any other proceedings, either at the relevant time, or did not do anything even after the order of this Court dated 13.07.2007. The workman, under these circumstances, sent representation to the employer on 18.10.2013 annexing therewith the copy of his acquittal order also. The employer had not initiated any other proceedings, either at the relevant time, or did not do anything even after the order of this Court dated 13.07.2007. The workman, under these circumstances, sent representation to the employer on 18.10.2013 annexing therewith the copy of his acquittal order also. However the same was not responded by the employer. The workman subsequently sent legal notice on 21.02.2008 to the employer. Neither the workman was taken on service, nor the representation or notice was responded by the employer. It is under these circumstances that the workman moved the Labour Court and the Reference (LCS) No. 820 of 2008 came to be registered. The Labour Court, in the facts recorded above, found that the action of the employer of not permitting the workman to resume the duty was not legal. The Labour Court however moulded the relief by awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. After having found that the action of the employer of not permitting the workman to resume the duty was not legal, the Labour Court was in error in moulding relief by awarding lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. In the facts of this case, the workman was entitled to reinstatement. The impugned award needs to be interfered with to that extent and the petition filed by the workman needs to be allowed. 7.3. So far the argument of learned advocate for the employer that opportunity ought to have been given to the employer to lead the evidence, is concerned, the same needs to be rejected for the reason that, evidence can be led to substantiate the charge, if any is leveled against the workman. In the present case, no charge-sheet is ever issued against the workman, at any point of time. In the present case, no charge-sheet is ever issued against the workman, at any point of time. So far reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, as noted above are concerned, there can not be any dispute with regard to the proposition of law, but they are mainly to the effect that if the departmental inquiry is not held properly, or if not held pursuant to the charge-sheet issued, the employer can be permitted to lead evidence before the Labour Court, however in the present case, it is not in dispute that except the termination order dated 19.08.1998 which was solely based on the conviction, which is subsequently set aside, at no point of time, any other communication is ever sent by the employer to the workman, asking him to explain his conduct. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court could not have invited leading of evidence in vacuum. Further, Labour Court has also recorded in Para-6 of the award that, the application so made by the employer was not pressed. Under these circumstances, the challenge made by the employer, to the impugned award, needs to be dismissed. 7.4. There is an additional reason to dismiss the petition filed by the employer. A show is created that the employer was aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, however the same does not appear to be bonafide. In this regard it is recorded that, the award is dated 07.09.2013, the workman sent a communication to the employer informing that he is challenging the said award before the High Court and therefore he be not sent any amount in that regard. The said representation was sent by the workman on 18.10.2013. Soon thereafter, the employer sent a cheque of Rs. 1,40,000/- vide communication dated 28.10.2013. It is not that the workman accepted and just returned it. The said cheque itself is returned by the workman to the employer vide his letter dated 29.10.2013, referring therein to his representation dated 18.10.2013, that he was not willing to accept the said compensation. The lack of bonafide on the part of the employer does not end there. Had he been aggrieved, the petition would have been filed soon thereafter, however they sat tight over it. The lack of bonafide on the part of the employer does not end there. Had he been aggrieved, the petition would have been filed soon thereafter, however they sat tight over it. The workman moved this Court by filing a petition being Special Civil Application No. 4134 of 2014, on which this Court issued notice on 19.03.2014 making it returnable on 29.04.2014. Couple of days before the returnable date of that notice, on 25.04.2014 (Friday), the employer filed a petition and on Monday i.e. on 28.04.2014, urgent circulation was prayed for, for 29.04.2014, which was granted and that is how Special Civil Application No. 6417 of 2014 is instituted by the employer. Even if these aspects are not gone into, suffice is to hold that, the workman was not only entitled to relief, but was entitled to relief of reinstatement. In view of this, Special Civil Application No. 6417 of 2014 filed by the employer needs to be dismissed. 7.5. Reverting back to the claim of the workman regarding back wages, it needs to be recorded that, the workman was kept away from his job was solely based on conviction, which does not exist on and from 13.07.2007. Thus, the action of the employer to keep the workman away from the job thereafter is not only illegal, but without any basis also. Under these circumstances, the workman is entitled to back wages also. At the same time, it also needs to be recorded that, for the period from 19.08.1998 to 13.07.2007, the employer can not be fastened with any liability of back wages, since the termination order was based on conviction and it was holding the filed upto 13.07.2007. Under these circumstances, the back wages is denied for the period from 19.08.1998 to 13.07.2007. So far the period thereafter is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the ends of justice would meet if the workman is granted 50% back wages for the said period. The impugned award therefore needs to be modified to this extent. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 8.1. Special Civil Application No. 4134 of 2014, filed by the workman, is allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the workman is entitled to reinstatement, with continuity of service. The impugned award therefore needs to be modified to this extent. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 8.1. Special Civil Application No. 4134 of 2014, filed by the workman, is allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the workman is entitled to reinstatement, with continuity of service. The workman shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period from 19.08.1998 to 13.07.2007. He shall be entitled to 50% back wages from 14.07.2007 till date of award i.e. 07.09.2013. He shall be entitled to regular wages from 08.09.2013. The award of the Labour Court, as modified by this judgment, shall be given effect to within a period of two months from today. Rule made absolute to this extent, with no order as to costs. 8.2 Special Civil Application No. 6417 of 2014, filed by the employer, is dismissed. Notice is discharged, with no order as to costs. Special C.A. No. 4134 of 2014 allowed and Special C.A. No. 6417 of 2014 dismissed.