JUDGMENT : MILIND N JADHAV, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. By the present Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 29.11.2016 and 05.12.2016 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur, inter alia, treating the industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner as disposed of and submitting his report under Section 2(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 by observing that said matter could not be proceeded with, in the absence of the Petitioner. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court through the present Petition. 3. The Petitioner was appointed as Junior Inspector with Respondent no. 1-Company on 28.03.1980 and according to the Petitioner, he had an unblemished and excellent service record. On 04.05.1982, the Petitioner was called upon to explain the allegations of misconduct leveled against him and the Petitioner came to be suspended on 04.05.1982 itself. The Petitioner denied the allegations leveled against him by filing his reply dated 14.05.1982. The enquiry was conducted and one Shri M. V. Satghare, Assistant Divisional Manager (Admn.) who was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet called upon the Petitioner to submit his written statement. The Petitioner filed his reply dated 12.07.1982 and denied the charges leveled against him as stated in the charge-sheet. The charges leveled against the Petitioner were graft charges, inter alia, pertaining to conduct of the Petitioner in taking bribes for expeditious settlement of claims and for submitting false particulars of claims and as such, the charges were deemed to be a serious misconduct in terms of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1975. After the Petitioner's suspension, he was paid a salary of Rs. 125/- per month. According to the Petitioner, the preliminary enquiry was held behind his back and the statements were also recorded behind his back from various witnesses. The Petitioner was also aggrieved with the fact that he had demanded the assistance of a lawyer in the enquiry which was arbitrarily denied by Respondent no. 1. The enquiry proceedings were held from 31.07.1982 to 24.09.1982 and by order dated 27.12.1982, the Petitioner was terminated/discharged from service. The copy of enquiry report was supplied to the Petitioner along with termination order. 4. After receipt of the enquiry report, the Petitioner made an application dated 24.02.1982 under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the Conciliation Officer. The enquiry proceedings were held from 31.07.1982 to 24.09.1982 and by order dated 27.12.1982, the Petitioner was terminated/discharged from service. The copy of enquiry report was supplied to the Petitioner along with termination order. 4. After receipt of the enquiry report, the Petitioner made an application dated 24.02.1982 under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 before the Conciliation Officer. The said conciliation proceedings failed and the Reference was refused by the Conciliation Officer whereupon being aggrieved the Petitioner filed Writ Petition no. 282/1986 before this Court and by order dated 05.07.1991, the said Petition was allowed with a direction to the Central Government to make Reference to the appropriate Court in accordance with law. Thus, conciliation proceedings were initiated before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), Jabalpur. On 27.01.2012, the Tribunal passed an award and answered the Reference in the affirmative and held that action on the part of Management of Respondent no. 1 in terminating services of the Petitioner w.e.f. 27.12.1982 was illegal and unjustified and set aside the award dated 27.12.1982. The Tribunal further held that the Petitioner was entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and benefits including promotion and other consequential benefits. Further the Tribunal held that the Petitioner was entitled to get 50% back wages from the date of his termination from service till his reinstatement. 5. Being aggrieved by the above award, the Petitioner filed a fresh Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 3144/2012 before this Court. The Petitioner has also filed a second Writ Petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 4507/2012 to challenge the denial of 50% back wages to the Petitioner and to the extent of giving adverse findings against him. Both the above mentioned Writ Petitions came to be disposed of by a common order dated 12.03.2013, inter alia, upholding the order passed by CGIT, Jabalpur directing reinstatement of the Petition and modifying the order to the extent of denial of 50% back wages and in place thereof the Management was directed to pay 25% back wages to the Petitioner. Respondent no. 1 being aggrieved by the above order dated 12.03.2013 by this Court while disposing of Writ Petition no. 3144/2012 filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) no. Respondent no. 1 being aggrieved by the above order dated 12.03.2013 by this Court while disposing of Writ Petition no. 3144/2012 filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) no. 10479/2014 and by order dated 25.07.2014, Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the Special Leave to Appeal with direction to the Respondents to issue second show cause notice for considering the explanation and passing final order within three months. The Hon'ble Apex Court also directed the Respondent no. 1 to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Petitioner and also to issue formal order of reinstatement within a period of two weeks. Respondent no. 1 did not adhere to the directions given in the above order, therefore the Petitioner filed Contempt Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court being Contempt Petition No. 613/2015, but the same came to be dismissed on 11.01.2016. In view of the order dated 25.07.2014, Disciplinary proceedings of the Petitioner were resumed before Disciplinary Officer Dr. M. Shanker, Deputy Chief Manager and Disciplinary Officer for final order. 6. Respondent no. 1 reinstated the Petitioner as Development Officer by order dated 26.08.2014, but, on 22.09.2014 Respondent no. 1 once again suspended the Petitioner and issued second show cause notice by order dated 06.12.1982. The enquiry proceedings were directed to be held on 03.07.2015 and the Petitioner was directed to remain present on the same day. Since the Petitioner was quite old, he could not remain present and requested the Enquiry Officer for assistance of a Lawyer to defend him before the Enquiry Officer but, the said request was denied. The Enquiry Officer after hearing the parties passed order dated 14.10.2015 removing the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 14.10.2015, filed Reference before Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur. The Petitioner was represented by counsel before the above Authority, as the Petitioner himself could not remain present due to major health issues like bypass surgery and diabetes etc. The impugned order came to be passed in the above background by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur, inter alia, held as under :- "It is observed that the workman remained absent in spite of notices. The workmen is no longer interested to proceed with the matter as evident from his absence during Conciliation Proceedings. The matter cannot proceed in absence of workman. The workmen is no longer interested to proceed with the matter as evident from his absence during Conciliation Proceedings. The matter cannot proceed in absence of workman. In view of above, this authority is inclined to believe that the workman concerned is not interested in proceeding with the matter as such the industrial dispute raised by the workman is treated as otherwise disposed of." 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had presented before the Conciliation Officer and requested that he be represented by a Lawyer and thereafter even in the second round of litigation before the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner the same request was also made, however, the impugned order did not record any specific reasons on the request made by the Petitioner and observed that the Petitioner was not interested to proceed with the matter as evident from the conciliation proceedings and matter could not proceed in the absence of the Petitioner. The impugned order was further challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary, perverse and a non-speaking order specially due to repeated rounds of the litigation of party and effort to approach this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court and orders passed by this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. Per CONTRA : The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 1 submitted that the impugned order was correctly passed. According to him, though the Petitioner had stated that he was indeed suffering from medical problems but, in absence of any certificate to that effect, it did not lie in the mouth of the Petitioner to prefer that ground. According to him, the Petitioner has made a false ground for seeking to reopen the conciliation proceedings. He also submitted that the impugned order is mere a order in the form of internal communication between a subordinate officer and his superior authority and as such no judicial/quasi-judicial act was performed and therefore, the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. He submitted that if the Plaintiff is aggrieved by his termination, he could directly apply to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of his dispute as an alternate remedy which is available to the Petitioner on the above issue and prayed for dismissal of the Petition. 9. He submitted that if the Plaintiff is aggrieved by his termination, he could directly apply to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of his dispute as an alternate remedy which is available to the Petitioner on the above issue and prayed for dismissal of the Petition. 9. Having regard to the rival submissions, it is stated that the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions cited supra and order of Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra could not be lost sight of, if order is not passed for giving relief and recourse to the Petitioner. None of the orders passed, till today have had any bearing on the merits of the mater and as such the impugned order passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur in inclining to believe that the Petitioner was not interested to proceed and therefore, the matter could not proceed in the absence of the Petitioner, prima-facie is harsh and arbitrary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the Petitioner's case, the Petitioner deserves to be accorded one more chance for conciliation proceedings, specially in view of the fact that the Petitioner is almost 65 years old and out of reckoning for any further job. 10. The impugned order dated 29.11.2016 and 05.12.2016 is therefore set aside and direction is given to make one more attempt for conciliation proceedings by issuing notice, by making it clear that he will have to be present in the proceedings and in the event he is not in a position to remain present, he will have to appoint some representative on his behalf or Advocate to be present with all the material at his disposal to complete reconciliation proceedings once again. 11. With the above directions, Petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. 12. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed in terms of the above order.