JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner Corporation and Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 workman. 2. Having regard to the facts of the case, Rule. Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate has waived service of Notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1. 3. In view of the submission and statement made by Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner Corporation and with consent of Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 workman the petition is heard for final decision today. 4. It is relevant and necessary to mention that learned advocate for the petitioner Corporation and learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 workman jointly submitted that by the award impugned in present petition learned Labour Court has not passed any direction for payment of backwages, though the order of terminating the service of the respondent No. 1 is set aside. 4.1 It is jointly submitted, in light of the observations by the learned Labour Court in paragraph No. 11C of the impugned award read with paragraph No. 2 of the operative part of the award dated 31.1.2013 that after setting aside the order dismissing the respondent No. 1 from service the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner Corporation to consider the respondent's service as continues and to pay all retiral benefits to the respondent No. 1 by treating his service as continuous until the date on which he attained prescribed age for superannuation in 2006. However, for the intervening period i.e. from the date of termination until the date on which the respondent No. 1 reached the age of superannuation backwages are not to be paid. 5. In this context, learned advocate for the petitioner Corporation submitted that after having taken into account the fact that in present case the Inquiry Officer was appointed in 1997 whereas the show-cause-notice was issued about 4 years after the appointment of Inquiry Officer i.e. in June 2001 and the termination order came to be passed in July 2001 the competent authority of the corporation has submitted and stipulated that it does not have any objection to pay the retiral benefits to the respondent No. 1 by treating his service as continuous until the date on which he attained prescribed age for superannuation in 2006. 6. 6. In this view of the matter it would not be necessary to deliberate on the order and directions or to discuss the factual and/or legal aspects involved in the petition and/or the reasons and conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court at length and the petition can be disposed of in view of the above mentioned facts and submissions and statement. 6.1 However, even for the said purpose it would be appropriate to mention some relevant factual backdrop. 7. From the material on record it has emerged that somewhere in November 1980 in response to the advertisement the respondent No. 1 had submitted application for appointment to the post of "Operator" as daily wager and w.e.f. 2.5.1981 the respondent No. 1 was engaged by the petitioner Corporation as "Rojmdar Operator" on daily rate basis. 7.1 The petitioner has alleged that somewhere in June 1982 the respondent No. 1 workman submitted wireman's Certificates bearing No. GJW 19639 and GJW 19636 dated 18.6.1982 and upon inquiry the said certificates were found to be forged. 7.2 It is pertinent that thereafter somewhere in March 1988 the respondent No. 1 was taken on work charge establishment w.e.f. 1.3.1998. 7.3 It is alleged that somewhere in September 1989 the Licensing Board informed the petitioner corporation that the said certificates were not issued by Licensing Board. 7.4 About 6 years after above mentioned events the respondent No. 1 was absorbed on temporary establishment w.e.f. 1.4.1993. 8. Thus, though the above mentioned aspects were before the petitioner corporation and in its knowledge since September 1989, the corporation absorbed the respondent No. 1 on temporary establishment w.e.f. 1.4.1993 i.e. retrospectively vide order dated 10.2.1995. 8.1 The petitioner has claimed that about 2 years thereafter i.e. in July 1997 the corporation decided to conduct inquiry against the respondent No. 1 with regard to forged certificates allegedly submitted by respondent No. 1 at the time of appointment. 8.2 According to the petitioner one Mr. A.H. Shah was appointed as Inquiry Officer. 9. At this stage it is relevant to mention that when the material on record of this petition is examined it emerges that the Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 15.7.1997. 8.2 According to the petitioner one Mr. A.H. Shah was appointed as Inquiry Officer. 9. At this stage it is relevant to mention that when the material on record of this petition is examined it emerges that the Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 15.7.1997. 9.1 Another aspect which is relevant on this count is that at that stage i.e. on or before 15.7.1997 neither any show-cause-notice, much less any chargesheet was issued to and served on the respondent No. 1 workman with regard to the said allegations. 9.2 Until order dated 15.7.1997 appointing Inquiry Officer came to be passed neither explanation was called for from the respondent No. 1 nor he was informed about the allegations. 9.3 Without even issuance of show-cause-notice Inquiry Officer came to be appointed. 10. It is also pertinent to mention that after appointing Inquiry Officer vide order dated 15.7.1997 the petitioner Corporation did not take any action for almost 4 years and suddenly on 26.6.2001 the petitioner Corporation for the first time and that too about 4 years after appointment of Inquiry Officer issued show-cause-notice to the respondent No. 1 workman. 10.1 It is pertinent to note that until then any allegation was not informed to the respondent No. 1 and any explanation from respondent No. 1 with regard to the said allegation was not called for. 10.2 Without having undergone the said process the petitioner Corporation, interestingly, mentioned in the show-cause-notice itself that the proceedings were initiated/conducted so as to dismiss him from the service. 10.3 A glance at said Notice dated 26.6.2001, gives out that (a) even before the charge/allegation was informed to the respondent No. 1 and (b) even before any explanation or defence was offered to the respondent No. 1 and (c) even before departmental inquiry was conducted, the petitioner Corporation had disclosed its mind about penalty. 10.4 The noticed dated 26.6.2001 discloses the fact that the authority was predetermined. 10.4 The noticed dated 26.6.2001 discloses the fact that the authority was predetermined. 10.5 It is also necessary to mention at this stage that though on face of the notice dated 26.6.2001 it is mentioned "Final Notice" it would give impression that prior to 26.6.2001 the show-cause-notice or chargesheet might have been issued, however from the material on record and also from the submissions by learned advocate for the parties it has emerged that before 26.6.2001 any show-cause-notice or chargesheet or any intimation with regard to the allegation was never issued by the petitioner Corporation. 11. After the said noticed dated 26.6.2001 the order dated 9.7.2001 came to be passed whereby the petitioner Corporation dismissed the respondent No. 1 from service. 11.1 Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 9.7.2001 the respondent No. 1 raised industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication. 11.2 The order of reference came to be registered as Reference (LCV) No. 564 of 2003. 12. The respondent No. 1 filed his statement of claim wherein he alleged that actually any inquiry was not conducted and any show-cause-notice or chargesheet was not served to him and any opportunity of defence and hearing was not granted. 12.1 He also submitted that he had never submitted the certificates which were allegedly treated as certificates submitted by him. 12.2 He also claimed that actually when his appointment was made he was not even informed that it was necessary to submit wireman's certificate. 13. The statement of claim and the reference were opposed by the petitioner Corporation by filing written statement and then the learned Labour Court proceeded with the hearing of the reference. 14. The petitioner Corporation claimed that Inquiry Officer submitted that in his report the Inquiry Officer held that the allegation against the respondent No. 1 workman is proved and therefore the respondent's service came to be terminated vide order dated 9.7.2001. 15. Both the sides placed documentary evidence on record. 16. On behalf of the petitioner Corporation deposition of one Mr. Siddpuriya was recorded. The deposition of the respondent No. 1 workman was also recorded. 17. 15. Both the sides placed documentary evidence on record. 16. On behalf of the petitioner Corporation deposition of one Mr. Siddpuriya was recorded. The deposition of the respondent No. 1 workman was also recorded. 17. Subsequently after considering the material available on record and submissions on behalf of the respondent workman and the petitioner Corporation learned labaour Court reached to the finding of fact, more particularly after taking into account the above referred dates of events, that it was established that any domestic inquiry was actually not conducted. 17.1 Learned Labour Court also took into account that though the facts were allegedly known to the petitioner Corporation since June 1982 and Licensing Board had informed the petitioner Corporation that certificates in question are not issued by it, the petitioner corporation had regularized the service of the respondent No. 1 from daily wager to work charge and from work charge to temporary establishment. 17.2 Learned Labour Court also took into account the above mentioned aspects emerging from the date of appointment of Inquiry Officer, date of the notice/intimation (26.6.2001) and the date of termination order. 17.3 After considering said facts learned Labour Court recorded said findings i.e. that the domestic inquiry was not conducted and the respondent No. 1 was not granted an opportunity of offering explanation and opportunity to defence his case was also not granted. 17.4 The learned Labour Court also recorded that the witness who was examined by the petitioner corporation and whose deposition was recorded at exhibit 10 (i.e. Mr. Siddhpuriya) accepted before the Court during his deposition that he had no personal knowledge about the fact as to whether the inquiry was conducted or not and if the inquiry was conducted he was not present at the time of inquiry or during inquiry. He was also not aware as to which certificates were submitted by the respondent No. 1 and/or as to whether chargesheet was served to the respondent No. 1 or not and as to whether any explanation from the respondent No. 1 with regard to allegation, was called for or not. 17.5 In paragraph No. 11B of the impugned award learned Labour Court has discussed at length the evidence and other material available on record, the effect and value of the evidence which was available on record and its conclusion as well as reason in support of its conclusions. 18. 17.5 In paragraph No. 11B of the impugned award learned Labour Court has discussed at length the evidence and other material available on record, the effect and value of the evidence which was available on record and its conclusion as well as reason in support of its conclusions. 18. On examination of the conclusion and supporting reasons recorded by the learned Labour Court it emerges that the conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court are supported by cogent and satisfactory reasons which, in turn, are supported by the material on record. 18.1 Therefore, the conclusions and findings recorded by the learned Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse. 18.2 At this stage it is relevant to note that actually such contentions are not raised or pressed in service with regard to the findings recorded by the learned Laobur court. 18.3 The reasons and conclusions recorded by the learned Labour Court do not warrant any interference. The learned Labour Court set aside the dismissal order. 19. Learned Labour Court has also recorded that the respondent No. 1 had reached prescribed age for superannuation and that therefore the question of issuing any direction to reinstate the workman does not survive and in the facts of the case learned labour Court declined to grant relief of backwages. 19.1 Instead learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to direct the petitioner Corporation to treat the workman's service as continuous from the date of termination until the date on which the workman reached age of superannuation in 2006 and to pay all retiral benefits to the respondent No. 1. 20. Having considered the said aspects, Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner fairly submitted that even the competent authority has taken into account the aspects discussed by the learned Labour Court in the award and therefore the petitioner would not have any objection to pay the retiral dues to the respondent No. 1 by considering his service as continuous as directed by learned Labour Court. 20.1 Besides the said submission by learned advocate for the petitioner corporation this Court is also of the view that the impugned award and the direction passed by the learned Labour Court do not warrant any interference. 21. 20.1 Besides the said submission by learned advocate for the petitioner corporation this Court is also of the view that the impugned award and the direction passed by the learned Labour Court do not warrant any interference. 21. The award and direction passed by learned Labour Court do not suffer from any infirmity and any case to interfere with the conclusions and the reasons recorded by learned Labour Court and/or final direction passed by learned Labour Court is not made out. 21.1 In this view of the matter and also in light of the statement and submission by learned advocate for the petitioner corporation the petition is disposed of. The corporation shall act according to the submission and statement made by learned advocate on instruction from the competent authority. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. Orders accordingly.