IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1334 of 2010 1. The Chairman, Central Silk Board, Central Silk Complex, IV-Floor, BTM Layout, House Road, Bangalore-560 068 2. The Deputy Director, National Sericulture Project, Central Silk Board, Bheria Dangi, Kishanganj, District- Kishanganj ----- Appellants/Petitioners. Versus 1. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna, Shram Bhawan, Near Income Tax Building, Patna. 2. Nawal Kumar Gupta, son of Ram Kishore Gupta, Sharda Nagar, New Bus Stand, Purnea, District- Purnea ------- Respondents. ------------ 6. 13.1.2011 Heard Mr. S. N. Pathak for the appellants, and Mr. Vijoy Nandan Sahay for respondent no.2. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the judgment dated 28.4.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W. J.C. No.13014 of 2005 (The Chairman, Central Silk Board & Ors. Vrs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna & Others), whereby the award dated 27.5.2005, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, in Reference Case No.17 of 2004/4(C) of 2004, has been upheld with certain modifications. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the 2 parties. Respondent no.2 herein was in the employment of the appellant Corporation. His services were dispensed with from 31.12.1996 (A/N). Respondent no.2 raised an industrial dispute leading to the aforesaid reference on 15.1.2004. The learned Industrial Tribunal held that services of respondent no.2 herein have been dispensed with which amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), and was in complete violation of the mandatory provision of Section 25F of the Act. He, therefore, directed for reinstatement of respondent no.2 with back wages. 3. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant herein preferred the present writ petition which has been dismissed with the modification in the award that respondent no.2 shall be entitled to back wages to the extent of 50% for the period 1.1.1997 to 15.1.2004. Hence this appeal at the instance of the employer. 4. We have perused the materials on record, and we entirely agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that dispensing with the engagement of respondent no.2 was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act and, therefore, there is no escape from the 3 conclusion that his services have to be reinstated with back wages. We also agree with the second part of the order of the learned Single Judge whereby he has partly modified the award and has granted wages to the extent of 50% for the period 1.1.1997 to 15.1.2004, for the reason that the reference had been made seven years after services of respondent no.2 had been dispensed with. Why should, therefore, the employer be saddled with unnecessary payment of wages to the employee for the idle period. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants relies on the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by one of us (S.K. Katriar, J.), in C.W.J.C. No.3861 of 2000 (Sukhdeo Paswan & two others vs. National Sericulture Project), where, it is submitted, similarly circumstanced employees of the same organization were differently treated. We regret our inability to accede to the submission for the reason that the same was an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court being relied on before a Division Bench. Secondly, the provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not considered and applied in that case. Therefore, that order is irrelevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeal where applicability of Section 25-F of the Act is a very important issue. In the 4 present case, the issues were examined by a forum of facts, namely, the Industrial Tribunal, and it has been found as an issue of fact that the conditions of Section 25F of the Act as pre-conditions were not followed by the appellants as a result of which the order of retrenchment becomes bad in law, with which the learned Single Judge has agreed. Thirdly, C.W. J.C. No. 3861 of 2000 did not raise issues relating to retrenchment, but was a case to absorb those petitioners in permanent service. Therefore, the order in C.W. J.C. No. 3861 of 2000 is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The time granted by the learned Single Judge for compliance of his order is hereby extended for a further period of three months from today. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( S. P. Singh, J.)