JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 06.12.2010 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad (in short to be referred as “the Tribunal”) in Reference No. 315 of 2001 whereby the Tribunal has answered the reference by directing the petitioner-management to reinstate the concerned workman Sri Roop Lal Manjhi w.e.f. 26.12.1997 with back wages subject to stoppage of one increment from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the concerned workman namely Roop Lal Manjhi was a permanent employee of East Katras Colliery under M/s BCCL and was working in the said mines as Miner/Loader. He absented from duty unauthorizedly with effect from 10.03.1997 without any prior information/permission of the Management. The concerned workman was issued a chargesheet dated 15.04.1997 for the alleged misconduct of his habitual absenteeism, however he did not submit any reply to the said chargesheet. Thereafter, the petitioner-management appointed an enquiry officer for conducting departmental inquiry. The enquiry officer sent a notice to the concerned workman to participate in the enquiry, however he did not appear and as such the enquiry was held ex-parte. The inquiry report was subsequently submitted by holding the concerned workman guilty of the alleged misconduct of habitual absenteeism. The Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, passed the order of dismissal of the concerned workman from service vide letter dated 26.12.1997. The sponsoring Union raised an industrial dispute challenging the decision of the disciplinary authority. After failure of conciliation proceeding, the failure report was sent to the Central Government which referred the dispute for adjudication before the Tribunal with following terms of reference:- “Whether the action of the management of East Katras Colliery of M/s BCCL in dismissing Sri Ruplal Manjhi from the services of the company w.e.f. 26.12.1997 is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?” 3. The Tribunal registered the reference as Reference Case No. 315 of 2001 and directed the parties to file respective written statements. The sponsoring Union filed written statement on behalf of the workman and stated that the concerned workman had fallen ill from 10.03.1997 to 24.03.1997 and thus he remained absent from duty for the said period without the permission of the management. The sponsoring Union filed written statement on behalf of the workman and stated that the concerned workman had fallen ill from 10.03.1997 to 24.03.1997 and thus he remained absent from duty for the said period without the permission of the management. After his recovery, he went to join the duty along with the medical certificate, however the management did not allow him to join the duty. On the other hand, the management by filing its written statement contended that the concerned workman had absented himself unauthorizedly several times in the past also and on this occasion, he got absented from 10.03.1997 without any prior intimation to the management and as such the concerned workman was issued chargesheet and after following the due process, he was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. The management examined the enquiry officer as MW-1 and exhibited several documents in the industrial adjudication. However the Union, after filing of the written statement lost interest in the case and no one turned up to pursue the matter. During the pendency of the reference case, the concerned workman died on 26.09.2009. The learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 06.12.2010, however answered the reference in favour of the concerned workman and directed the management to reinstate him with back wages subject to stoppage of one increment from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the sponsoring Union espousing the cause of the concerned workman did not contest the reference case except filing of the written statement. It is further submitted that once the learned Tribunal arrived at a finding that the domestic inquiry was held fairly and properly, there was no valid reason for the learned Tribunal to interfere with the quantum of punishment more so when the concerned workman did not lay any evidence in his defence before the enquiry officer. In absence of any challenge to the legality or fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Tribunal should have been reluctant with regard to the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and the order of punishment passed by disciplinary authority. Hence, the Tribunal committed an error in answering the reference in favour of the concerned workman. In absence of any challenge to the legality or fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Tribunal should have been reluctant with regard to the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and the order of punishment passed by disciplinary authority. Hence, the Tribunal committed an error in answering the reference in favour of the concerned workman. It is also submitted that since the concerned workman had died during pendency of the reference case on 26.09.2009, the direction of the Tribunal for reinstatement of the concerned workman is itself illegal. Moreover, awarding full back wages while reducing the punishment to the extent of his stoppage of one increment from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement is also not justified as it is a settled principle of law that awarding the back wages to a workman is not automatic and several other factors are required to be considered such as gainful employment by the concerned workman during the period he/she remained out of service under the management, the financial position of the management etc. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his argument, has put reliance on the following judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- (i) Maan Singh Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 464 (ii) Mulin Sharma Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in (2016) 14 SCC 208 (iii) P. Karupaiah (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. General Manager, Thruuvalluvar Transport Corporation Limited reported in (2018) 12 SCC 663 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Union submits that the domestic inquiry was conducted ex-parte and the concerned workman was not afforded sufficient opportunity to explain the allegations levelled against him and as such the finding of the enquiry officer suffers from violation of principles of natural justice. The concerned workman was out of service since 1997 and he was thus forced to leave Dhanbad for his survival due to paucity of money. He subsequently died on 26.9.2009 leaving behind his wife Smt. Makauni Devi. It is further submitted that concerned workman should not have been inflicted with such a harsh punishment or dismissal from service for remaining absent from duty only for 15 days and therefore, the said punishment inflicted upon him is certainly disproportionate to the said charge. He subsequently died on 26.9.2009 leaving behind his wife Smt. Makauni Devi. It is further submitted that concerned workman should not have been inflicted with such a harsh punishment or dismissal from service for remaining absent from duty only for 15 days and therefore, the said punishment inflicted upon him is certainly disproportionate to the said charge. The learned Tribunal has issued the direction of reinstatement vide award dated 06.12.2010 as the fact of the death of the concerned workman was not brought before the learned Tribunal by either of the parties. However, in the ends of justice, the said award may be modified and the wife of the deceased workman i.e Smt. Makauni Devi may be allowed to receive the consequential benefits admissible to the deceased workman. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award dated 06.12.2010, has found the punishment of dismissal of the concerned workman disproportionate to the charge by observing that the petitioner has been dismissed from permanent service for the charge of absenteeism levelled (for the first time) as per the domestic inquiry held by the management. It has also been held by the learned Tribunal that as per the statement of concerned workman recorded by the inquiry officer during the domestic enquiry, he had fallen ill on 10.03.1997 and thereafter he got treatment at Benedih Hospital under Block-II Area of M/s BCCL till 10.04.1997 and then he reported for joining the duty on 11.04.1997, however he admitted the fact that not sending the information regarding his sickness to the concerned colliery was his fault and he undertook not to repeat the said mistake in future. 8. Though petitioner-management has contended that earlier also the concerned workman had absented from service several times, however on perusal of the entire record, it appears that neither any departmental proceedings was initiated against him nor any warning was given to him to improve his conduct. On this occasion, the petitioner absented from service only for 14 days for which he claimed that during the said period, he had fallen sick giving an apology that he would not repeat such mistake in future. On this occasion, the petitioner absented from service only for 14 days for which he claimed that during the said period, he had fallen sick giving an apology that he would not repeat such mistake in future. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find that the learned Tribunal has not committed any infirmity in passing the impugned award on the point of disproportionality of the punishment vis-à-vis the alleged charge of misconduct committed by the concerned workman. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-management is that once the Tribunal found the departmental proceeding/domestic inquiry as fair and proper, it was not justified to interfere with the order of punishment. I do not find any substance in the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a settled law that the Labour Court/ Tribunal may interfere with the quantum of punishment if the same is found to be grossly disproportionate to the charge. As discussed hereinabove, the learned Tribunal found the punishment to be grossly disproportionate and hence the order of punishment inflicting upon the concerned workman was rightly interfered with. 10. I have perused the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maan Singh (Supra.) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted as under:- “11. Relying on State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable [ (1992) 4 SCC 54 ] one of the arguments advanced before us is that it is only in cases where the misconduct is of the gravest kind an order of dismissal shall be made. This case was decided in the context of Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Manual, 1934, Vol. II. The said Rule reads as follows: “Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. This case was decided in the context of Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Manual, 1934, Vol. II. The said Rule reads as follows: “Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.” After analysing the said provision, this Court in Ram Singh case [ (1992) 4 SCC 54 ] held that Rule 16.2(1) consists of two parts, firstly, dismissal shall be awarded for the gravest acts of misconduct and secondly, cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service and the length of service of the offender and his claim for pension should be taken into account in an appropriate case. The second part is referable to a misconduct which, by itself, may not warrant an order of dismissal and may be a ground to take a lenient view of giving an opportunity to reform and even after giving such opportunities, if the delinquent officer is proved to be incorrigible and found completely unfit to remain in service then in order to maintain discipline in the service appropriate punishments can be given. Therefore, when the charge against the appellants in each of these cases is habitual absence for long periods on several occasions unauthorisedly, the view taken by the disciplinary authority is justified.” 11. It would thus be evident that in the aforesaid case, the delinquent officer belonged to the Police Department and earlier on several occasions, he was charged with habitual absenteeism for long period and thus the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority was held to be justified. Moreover in the said case, Their Lordships held that the order of dismissal passed against the delinquent officer was justified as it was proved that the said officer was completely unfit to remain in service. However in the present case, the petitioner-management has failed to show as to how the concerned workman was found to be completely unfit to remain in service. 12. However in the present case, the petitioner-management has failed to show as to how the concerned workman was found to be completely unfit to remain in service. 12. So far as the order of reinstatement of the concerned workman is concerned, the same appears to have been passed despite the fact that the concerned workman had already died and therefore the impugned order to the extent of issuing direction to the petitioner to reinstate the concerned workman cannot be sustained in law and hence the same is quashed/set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management has also assailed the impugned direction issued by the learned Tribunal to the petitioner–management for making payment of back wages to the concerned workman on the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the payment of back wages is not automatic on mere quashing of the order of dismissal, rather before awarding the back wages, it is required to be proved by the workman that during the period of dismissal, he was not gainfully employed anywhere else. 14. In the case of P. Karupaiah (Dead) through Legal Representatives (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “11. Indeed, the employee in order to claim the relief of back wages along with the relief of reinstatement is required to prove with the aid of evidence that from the date of his dismissal order till the date of his rejoining, he was not gainfully employed anywhere. The employer too has a right to adduce evidence to show otherwise that an employee concerned was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any relief of back wages. 12. On proving such facts to the satisfaction of the Court, the back wages are accordingly awarded either in full or part or may even be declined as the case may be while passing the order of reinstatement. The courts have also applied in appropriate cases the principle of “no work no pay” while declining to award back wages and confining the relief only to the extent of grant of reinstatement along with grant of some consequential reliefs by awarding some benefits notionally, if any, in exercise of discretionary powers depending upon the facts of each case.” 15. Further, in the case of Mulin Sharma Vs. State of Assam (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “14. Further, in the case of Mulin Sharma Vs. State of Assam (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “14. We are fully satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, back wages should not have been awarded to the appellant herein. In several cases, this Court has held that payment of back wages is a discretionary power which has to be exercised by a court keeping in view the facts in their entirety and neither straitjacket formula can be evolved nor a rule of universal application can be laid down in such cases. Thus, 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. 15. In C.N. Malla v. State of J&K [ (2009) 9 SCC 597 ], this Court has held as under: (SCC p. 600, para 11) “11. The legal position is fairly settled by a catena of decisions that direction to pay back wages in its entirety is not automatic consequent upon declaration of dismissal order bad in law. The concept of discretion is inbuilt in such exercise. The court is required to exercise discretion reasonably and judiciously keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Each case, of course, would depend on its own facts.” 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the concurrent finding of the courts below that the appellant herein is not entitled to back wages in the absence of any material on record that he remained unemployed during the entire period from 23-5-1998 to 16-8-1999 is correct. Even the learned counsel for the appellant herein has admitted before this Court that he was not allowed to perform his duties after obtaining his signature on 22-5-1998.” 16. In the present case, so far as the direction of the learned Tribunal for payment of back wages to the concerned workman by the petitioner is concerned, the same is not supported by any finding as to whether the concerned workman was unemployed during the period of dismissal. In the present case, so far as the direction of the learned Tribunal for payment of back wages to the concerned workman by the petitioner is concerned, the same is not supported by any finding as to whether the concerned workman was unemployed during the period of dismissal. It also does not appear from the impugned award as to whether the workman had pleaded before the learned Tribunal that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the said period of dismissal. 17. Since the present matter is quite old and the concerned workman has already died, keeping in view of the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to award a lump sum compensation to the wife/legal representatives of the concerned workman as there is a clear finding of the learned Tribunal that his dismissal from service by the petitioner-management was not proper. While arriving at the said lump sum compensation, few relevant factors are to be considered such as; the workman was born in the year 1957 and he joined the service on 05.10.1979 as such he, after attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years, would have retired from service in the year 2017, however he was dismissed from service in the year 1997. Thus, he served for more than 18 years. The sponsoring Union agitated the matter immediately after the order of dismissal and the impugned award was passed in the year 2010 but unfortunately till that time, the concerned workman died and thus could not avail the outcome of the award. 18. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the petitioner-management is directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the wife/L.R. of the concerned workman after due identification. Since the concerned workman was a permanent employee and that the order of dismissal has been set aside by the learned Tribunal, his wife/legal representatives will also be entitled to the admissible retiral benefits under the prevalent rules of M/s. BCCL. The impugned award dated 06.12.2010 passed by the Tribunal in Reference No. 315 of 2001 is modified to the above extent. 19. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.