JUDGMENT : In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 A.M. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the part of Award dated 24.05.2011, passed by learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 39 of 2005, whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to direct the petitioner-management to pay full back wages w.e.f. 17.05.2001 till the date of passing of the Award, as the concerned workman has been reinstated in services. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the respondent-workman was a permanent employee of petitioner-Management and was posted at Katras-Choitidih Colliery as miner/ loader. It is the case of the respondent that during course of employment, the workman suffered from Tuberculosis and treated at Central Hospital, Dhanbad. After recovery from the said illness, the respondent-workman appeared before the Management with medical fitness certificate on 07.08.1999 for reporting for his duties. The Management of Katras-Choitudih Colliery allowed him to work in 2 pit mine of the colliery and the concerned workman started working there. It is the case of the respondent that when he made representation before the petitioner-Management for payment of salary and other benefits for the period of his absence, the Management of BCCL illegally issued charge-sheet and conducted an enquiry with respect to his willful absence from the duty and thereafter, after holding departmental enquiry, dismissed him from work. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-workman approached the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India for redressal of his grievance and the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the dispute for adjudication before the learned Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad after framing the following issue: “Whether the action of the management of Katras Chaitudih Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Suresh Nonia from the service of the company vide order dated 17.05.2001 is fair and justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?” Upon the receipt of the same, the learned Tribunal registered the same as Ref. If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?” Upon the receipt of the same, the learned Tribunal registered the same as Ref. No. 39 of 2005 and issued notices upon the respective parties to submit their written statement, rejoinder, etc. The respondent-workman submitted his written statement contending that the enquiry was not held in accordance with law and the punishment awarded to him was illegal and as such, he is liable to be reinstated in service with full back wages. 4. Upon receipt of the notice and written statement of the respondent-workman, the petitioner-Management appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed rejoinder contending that the order of dismissal was fully justified. It was the case of the petitioner-Management that respondent-workman was a permanent employee of the BCCL working as miner/ loader at Katras-Chaitidih Colliery. It was the further case of the petitioner that respondent-workman started absenting himself from duties w.e.f. 16.01.2000 without obtaining any prior permission or leave from the petitioner-Management. For the above act of misconduct, he was issued charge-sheet dated 02.12.2000 and in turn, the respondent-workman submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory and accordingly, the Management initiated departmental proceeding against the respondent-workman by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report holding therein that the charges levelled against the concerned workmen was proved. Thereafter, the petitioner-Management after perusing the enquiry report and the past conduct of the concerned workman, dismissed him from service vide dismissal order dated 16/17.05.2001. 5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties at length and after perusing the documents and evidences brought on record, came to the conclusion that the dismissal of the respondent-workman from his service is not justified and as such, he is entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f. 17.05.2001 with full back wages and consequential benefits. In compliance of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the Management reinstated the respondent-workman. However, the petitioner-Management is aggrieved by the finding of the learned Tribunal regarding payment of full back wages to the respondent-Workman and hence, the petitioner-Management approached this Court confining his prayer on the point of back wages since the concerned workman has neither pleaded nor proved before the learned Tribunal that he was gainfully employed or not during the period of dismissal. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management, assailing the impugned order argues that learned Tribunal was not justified in passing the order of reinstatement with full back wages. However, learned counsel very fairly submits that in compliance of the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the workman has already been reinstated into the services but without back wages as the Award of the Tribunal was under challenge and the matter was sub-judiced and by way of interim order passed by this Court, the award of the Tribunal was stayed and in the aforesaid circumstances back wages was not paid. Mr. Mehta further argues that since nothing has been brought on record to show as to whether workman was gainfully employed or not, no back wages could have been allowed by the learned Tribunal. It has been further argued that learned Tribunal has erred in law by passing the order of back wages and hence, award is fit to be quashed and set aside. To buttress his arguments, Mr. Mehta places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (I) Mulin Sharma Vs. State of Assam & Ors. [ (2016) 14 SCC 208 ]; & (II) P. Karupaiah (dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. General Manager, Thruuvalluvar Transport Corp. Ltd. [(2018) 12 SCC 663]. 7. Mr. R.P. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, submits that the order of dismissal was passed without following the cardinal principle of natural justice since no second show-cause notice or copy of enquiry report was ever served before passing of the dismissal order. Further, the petitioner-management had not obtained any sanction for challenging the award in terms of office memorandum dated 19.03.1999, issued by Ministry of Labour and as such, no interference is warranted in the impugned award. 8. Be that as it may, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that admittedly, a person who has not worked for a particular period, is not entitled for the remuneration/ salary of the said period. No straight jacket formula can be evolved for coming to a conclusion as to whether an employee is entitled for back wages or not. Even discretion of the Court is based on the rules and law laid down on this point. No straight jacket formula can be evolved for coming to a conclusion as to whether an employee is entitled for back wages or not. Even discretion of the Court is based on the rules and law laid down on this point. Before coming to a conclusion, one has to examine whether absence was willful or due to compelling circumstances. From perusal of the impugned Award and the documents brought on record, it appears that the absenteeism of the workman was neither willful nor deliberate, rather, it happened due to compelling circumstances. 9. Admittedly, the respondent-workman was suffering from serious ailment i.e. Tuberculosis, which is not in dispute. It was the petitioner-Management, who got the employee hospitalized in the Company’s hospital for treatment and after recovery, the workman joined his duties. However, the petitioner-Management dismissed the respondent-Workman from the service on ground of unauthorized absence which was challenged before the learned Tribunal and after passing of the award by the learned Tribunal in favour of the respondent-workman, the workman claimed for his reinstatement in service with full back wages. The employee had cogent reason for not attending his duties and the same could have been weighed before the Management. It is not a case that workman on his own deserted the office, rather, he was forced not to work due to compelling and prevailing circumstances. The said issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 . The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein below: “17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalization, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant.” 10. From perusal of the records it also appears that even cardinal principle of natural justice was not adhered to. From perusal of the records it also appears that even cardinal principle of natural justice was not adhered to. The constitutional provisions as envisaged under Article 311 was not taken into consideration inasmuch as, no second show-cause notice along with copy of the enquiry report was served to the petitioner before passing of the order of dismissal. It amounts to serious foully in the departmental proceeding. However, since much time has elapsed and in view of the fact that employee has already been reinstated into the service I am not inclined to interfere regarding foully in the departmental proceeding. 11. Admittedly, the employee was prevented from discharging his duties due to compelling circumstances and as such, he is entitled for 25% of the back wages. The order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that instead of awarding full back wages, the respondent-workman is entitled for only 25% back wages, in view of the fact that employee did not produce any documents regarding his gainful employment. 12. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 13. As a sequel to the dismissal of the writ petition, the order of stay dated 26.03.2012, passed by this Court, stands vacated and the I.A. No. 605 of 2012 filed for stay of Award dated 24.05.2011 also stands dismissed.