16 July 1996
Supreme Court


Case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 1315 of 1986






DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/07/1996


CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   424        1996 SCALE  (5)218



JUDGMENT:                       J U G D M E N T PARIPOORNAN,J.      Delayed condoned. Special leave granted. 2.   The appellant  is the Food Corporation of India Workers Union claiming  to be  a registered trade Union at Calcutta. The present  proceedings are  filed by  its  Secretary.  The respondents are  - (1)  the Food  Corporation of  India, New Delhi and  (2) The  Presiding  Officer,  Central  Government Industrial  Tribunal  at  Calcutta.  This  appeal  is  filed assailing  the   award  passed  by  the  Central  Government Industrial Tribunal  (the 2nd respondent) dated 5.11.1993 in Reference No.  13 of  1977  and  published  by  the  Central Government on 5.3.1994. 3.   We heard  counsel.  This  litigation  has  a  chequered history. This  is the  third round  in this Court. The first respondent, the  Food Corporation  of India,  is a statutory Corporation  established  for  the  purpose  of  trading  in foodgrains and  other food  stuffs and for matters connected therewith and  incidental thereto.  It undertakes  purchase, storage,  movement,  transport,  distribution  and  sale  of foodgrains and other food stuffs. The Corporation has set up its godowns/depots  and other  storage facilities. Labour is engaged at  different  stages  in  the  various  Depots  for handling storage  and transit  of foodgrains  and other food stuffs.  The  Corporation  is  functioning  through  various offices and  depots through  out India.  It seems  that  the Corporation adopted  different methods  at different  places for  employing   labour  for  handling  foodgrains.  We  are concerned in  this case  with one  such Depot  set up by the Corporation at  Siliguri in  West Bengal State. It is stated that  at  the  relevant  time,  464  workmen  designated  as Handling  Majdoors   were  attached   to  the   said  Depot. Initially, a  contractor was  engaged by the Corporation for handling, storage  and transit  of  foodgrains  at  Siliguri Depots. Subsequently,  the procedure  of direct  payment  to ’labourers was  followed by  the Corporation. The workmen at



its Siliguri  Depot went  on strike  in about  January 1975, which  was   called  off  in  March  1975.  Thereafter,  the Corporation  changed  the  method  of  payment.  The  direct payment  system   was  superseded.   The   payment   through contractor  was   reintroduced.  The   464  workmen  already accepted as the workmen of the Corporation, agitated through their Union  that the change-over was illegal and malacious. The  question  arose,  whether  the  aforesaid  464  persons represented by the Union and attached to Siliguri Depot were the workmen  of  the  Corporation  and  the  change  in  the conditions of  service made by the Corporation was valid and legal. This led to an industrial dispute. The matter came up finally before  this Court  in Civil Appeal No. 1055(NL)/81. By judgment  dated 28.2.1985,  a three-Member  Bench of this Court examined the matter in great detail, and held thus:      "Examining  the  system  of  direct      payment as  setout  in  the  letter      dated  April   28,   1973   further      amplified  by   the  letter   dated      October  29,   1973,   it   becomes      crystal clear  that name  of  every      workman enaged to handle foodgrains      at Siliguri  Depot will be mustered      in a  register and  his  daily  out      turn will be specified. The payment      will be  by piece  rate as  was  in      vogue at the time of the contractor      system. The  bill will  be prepared      setting out the name of the workmen      and the  out-turn of  each. The pay      bill will  be prepared  setting out      the names  of the  workmen and  the      out-turn of each. The pay bill will      be prepared  by the Depot staff who      are  regular   employees   of   the      Corporation. The  payment  will  be      made by the Corporation but will be      distributed   to    each    workman      according to the piece rate by what      are called Sardar/Mondal. The bills      with the  acquittance  in  original      evidencing payment  would be  filed      with the Corporation."      "When the direct payment system was      introduced,    the     intermediary      contractor  disappeared   from  the      picture. The  work rendered by each      workman had  to be  entered into  a      muster    roll     register.    The      Corporation  will   distribute  the      wages calculated  on piece  rate to      each workman  and each  workman was      required  to  be  a  party  to  the      acquittance roll to be  retained by      the  corporation.  The  wages  were      distributed by Sardars/Mondals."                   (p. 97 Main paperbook)      "................the conclusion  is      inescapable    that    since    the      introduction of  the direct payment      system,  the   workmen  became  the      workmen of  the Corporation  and  a      direct master- servant relationship      came into existence."      "if what  was intended  to be  done



    was  retrenchment,   ex  facie  the      action   is    contrary   to    the      provisions of  Sec. 25F  of  9  the      I.D. Act,  1947. Viewed from either      angle, the action of introducing so      as  to  displace  the  contract  of      service between the Corporation and      the workmen  would be  illegal  and      invalid and an initio void and such      action would not alter, change have      any effect  on the  status  of  the      afore-mentioned 464 workmen who had      become   the    workmen   of    the      Corporation."             (pp. 101-102 Main Paperbook)      "..........an award  be  made  that      the afore mentioned 464 workmen who      had  become   the  workmen  of  the      Corporation  continued  to  be  the      workmen employed by the Corporation      and shall  be entitled  to all  the      rights,  liabilities,   obligations      and duties  as prescribed  for  the      workmen  by   the  Corporation.   A      formal award  to that  effect shall      be made by the Tribunal."                  (pp 107 Main paperbook)                      (emphasis supplied)      "As it was stated before this Court      that these  workmen continued to be      employes,  undoubtedly   under  the      contractor since the illegal change      was  introduced,  the  question  of      paying back  wages does  not arise.      The Tribunal  however must  satisfy      itself  before   making  the  final      award  whether   any  workman   was      denied   work    and   consequently      wages."             (pp. 107-108 Main Paperbook)                      (emphasis supplied)      (Pages 83  to 108  - Main Paperbook      contain    the    judgment    dated      28.2.1985) 4. It  seems that  subsequent to  the  above  judgment,  the Tribunal passed  an Award  dated 24.11.1988 in the following terms :      "18.  In  view  of  what  has  been      stated and  discussed above, before      I go  into the determination of the      question with  regard to  the  back      wages  to   be  obtained   by   the      eligible   workmen   concerned   on      proper  materials  to  be  produced      before this Tribunal, this Tribunal      in reference,  to the  direction of      the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  in  the      penultimate first  paragraph, makes      the formal award as directed by the      Hon’ble Supreme  Court  by  way  of      interim award  in  the    following      manner.      19.  The   464  workmen  named  and      mentioned in  the list  annexed  to      the  written   statement   of   the



    workmen  and  referred  to  by  the      Hon’ble  Supreme   Court  in  their      judgment  in   Civil   Appeal   No.      1055(NL) of  1981, who  had  become      the  workmen   of  the  Corporation      continue to be the workmen employed      by the  Corporation  and  shall  be      entitled   to   all   the   rights,      liabilities, obligations and duties      as prescribed  for the  workmen  by      the Corporation".                 (p. 4 Paperbook Part II)                      (emphasis supplied) 5. The first respondent, Food Corporation of India, agitated the matter  again and  in Civil  Appeal No.  155/90, a  two- Member Bench  of this  Court by  judgment  dated  17.1.1990, passed the following order:      "Counsel on  both sides  and in our      opinion very  fairly submitted that      there  is   need  to  identify  the      workmen   who   are   entitled   to      reinstatement. In  fact, with  that      understanding  we  made  the  order      dated December  29, 1989 keeping in      abeyance of  the interim  award  of      the Tribunal.           It seems  to us  having regard      to  the  facts  of  the  case,  the      identification of  the workmen is a      must and it should be properly done      by  the   Tribunal.  We  therefore,      direct the  Tribunal to  proceed to      examine the  identification of  the      464 workmen  including 203  persons      in respect of whom there appears to      be no dispute from the management."                   (p.147 Main Paperbook)                      (emphasis supplied) 6.   Subsequently, the  Tribunal had  passed the Award dated 5.11.1993, after  completing the  identification exercise in respect of 287 workmen. (See Annexure to the order detailing "287" and  their number in the list of 464, mentioned by the appellant-Union in  the statement filed by it.) The Tribunal has taken  the view  that none of them were ever employed by the Food  Corporation of India. It has stated that they will not be  taken within  the fold  of 464 workmen dealt with in the above  mentioned two appeals of this Court. It should be stated again that out of 464 workmen dealt with in the above mentioned two  appeals of  this Court.  It should  be stated again that out of 464 workmen dealt with in judgment in C.A. No.1055(NL)/81  dated  28.2.1985,  the  Corporation  had  no dispute with  regard to 203 persons; and so, it appears, the dispute centered  around 261 persons only; and perhaps it is in this  context, only  the cases  of 287  workmen who  came forward to  prove their identity, as having been included in the total  464’ were considered by the Tribunal in its order dated 5.11.1993. 7.   The Special Leave Petition came up before this Court on more than  one occasion.  The counsel  for  the  Corporation fairly stated  that he  shall contact  the  Corporation  and assist this  Court to settle the problem in an amicable way. The Counsel  appearing for  the parties  were also  heard at some  length   and  this  Court  taken  through  the  rather voluminous  order   of  the   Presiding   Officer,   Central Government Industrial  Tribunal, which  is assailed  herein.



This will  be evident  from a  perusal of the earlier orders dated 20.3.1995  and 3.4.1955. But, no satisfactory solution could be arrived at to solve the problem amicably. 8.   We were  informed by  appellant’s counsel during one or two hearings  that a few workers were also present in Court. When the  matter came  up during  hearing, we  expressed the view that  we will, on our own, examine a few specimen cases and endeavour  to identify  whether such  persons present in Court  would   fall   within   the   "287   persons"   whose identifications were  questioned and considered in the order of Tribunal  dated 5.11.1993.  A list  containing the  photo copies duly  attested by  the Tribunal of the Identity Cards of 22  concerned  workmen  was  filed  before  us.  We  were informed that  287 workmen  deposed before the Tribunal. The "Identification" exercise is attempted after a lapse of more than 15  years and  due to  lapse of  time, there  is  every possibility of  the photographs and writings thereon getting blurred. The  workmen  are  illiterates  or  semi-literates. These vital handicaps have to be borne in mind in evaluating the "identification" to be undertaken and it is evident that the Tribunal  was totally  oblivious to  the above  stark or hard  realities  of  the  situation,  in  its  approach  and conclusion in  the matter. We compared the Identity Cards of two such  persons --  Permit No.,  23 Sri  Chandradeo Thakur date of  issue  of  identity  card,  14.4.1978;  and  Permit No.178,  Sri  Sachidanand  Sahani,  date  of  issue  of  the identity card,  not easily  traceable. They are available at pages 7  and 11 of the papers containing the xerox copies of the identity  cards. We  talked to  the above  persons,  who were present in Court, in the presence of counsel and passed the following  order on 4.5.1995 : (Page 264(A) - main paper book      "One of  the workers by the name of      Chander  Dev   Thakur  is   present      before us.  We have  seen  him  and      talked to  him. His  photograph  on      the xerox copy of the identity card      dt.  14.4.78   seems  to   be   the      photograph of  Chander Dev  Thakur.      We have  also taken  his signatures      before  us   and  tally   with  the      signatures   which   are   on   the      identity card.  Both the signatures      are identical.           Another  worker,   Sachidanand      Sawhney is  also present  in Court.      After seeing  him  and  seeing  the      photograph on  permit No.  178,  we      find that  the photograph is of the      person who is standing before us.           We  have  examined  these  two      workers only  to test  the findings      of  the   Industrial  Tribunal  who      found that  the photographs of none      of the  workers  tally  with  their      actual face and profile. " 9. We  would like  to highlight  a few facts. It is the Food Corporation of  India Workers  Union, the  appellant herein, who was a party in the earlier proceedings which resulted in the decision  of this  Court in C.A. No.1055(NL)/81 and also C.A. No.155/90.  The appellant  claims to  be  a  recognised trade Union.  The first respondent - management, stated that the appellant  was a  recognised Union  till  1984  and  not thereafter, since  no recognition was given to Union dealing with contract  labour. It  is so  stated in  the  additional



affidavit filed by the first respondent dated 17.7.1995. The appellant has  filed an  affidavit in reply dated 18.7.1995. It has  asserted that  it is  the only relevant trade Union, representing the  handling and loading & unloading Mazdoors, contract labour,  direct payment  or departmental  employees employed by  the first respondent in the whole of India. The appellant has  been representing the above mentioned workers for more than three decades. It also appears from the papers filed by  the appellant  that at various stages negotiations were  carried   on  between   the  appellant   -  Union  and respondent. So  it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a valid or recognised Trade Union. 10.  The second  aspect which  requires to be highlighted is this: the  dispute originally  concerned 464  workmen. It is stated that  pending the  proceedings a  few  persons  died. According to  appellant-Union, the number of persons who are dead is  ’56’ and  that has  been accepted  by the Tribunal. (Page 128  - paper  book Vol  . II ). It may be a case where employment should be provided to the nearest kith and kin of the  deceased   workman  as   provided   by   the   relevant rules/orders etc..  From the  later order  of this  Court in C.A. No.155/90  dated  17.1.1990,  it  is  evident  that  in respect  of  203  persons,  there  was  no  dispute  by  the Management. Perhaps,  it was  in this  context that evidence was led  in respect  of  only  287  workmen.  One  clinching circumstance disclosed in the case in appreciating the rival pleas of  the parties regarding the identity of the workmen, who  were  employed  in  the  Siliguri  Depot  of  the  Food Corporation of India, deserves to be noticed. In the written statement filed by the appellant - Union before the Tribunal as early as 7.7.1978 in paragraph 10, it is stated thus :      "10. That the Siliguri depot of the      Corporation, under  the  office  of      the District Manager, Siliguri, 464      Handling  Mazdoors,   as  whom   in      Annexure  marked   ’A’   with   all      relevant details,  were employed on      21.7.75,  for  doing  the  handling      workers of the Corporation."                  (p.37 - Main paperbook)                      (emphasis supplied) The management  filed a reply thereto dated 26.10.1978 which is available  at pages  149 to 162 of the Main Paperbook. At page 153, in paragraph 10, the management stated thus:      "10.  The   statement  as  made  in      paragraph   10   of   the   written      statement   of   the   workmen   is      substantially correct." The annexure  to the  written statement  (the list) filed by the appellant’s  Union dated  7.7.1978 available at pages 44 to 59  contains the  names  and  designation  of  the  (464) Mazdoors of  Siliguri Depot  as on 21.7.1975. The employment of such persons as specified in the list was not disputed at all by  the Management in the written statement. It does not appear that  the Management ever contested the fact that 464 workmen, specified  in the  list, were  attached to Siliguri Depot at  the relevant  time in  two prior Appeals i.e. C.A. No.1055(NL)/81  and  C.A.No.155/90.  Indeed,  in  the  later appeal, out  of 464  workmen the  Management had  no dispute about 203 persons. 11. Our  finding in  the earlier  order dated  4.5.1995,  at least regarding  two persons  who were  present in Court and whose identity could not and was not disputed with reference to their  photographs and  xerox  copies  of  the  Indentity cards, signatures therein etc., (though illustrative) points



out the  palpably erroneous  conclusion of the Tribunal that "none" of the 287 persons, who claimed to be included in the list  of  "464"  were  able  to  establish  that  they  were employees of  the Siliguri  Depot of the Food Corporation of India at  the relevant  time. We  are of  the view that this Court in  C.A. No.155/90  by  order  dated  17.1.1990,  only directed the  Tribunal to examine the indentification of 464 workmen, including  203 persons in respect of whom there was no dispute  from the  Management. There was no direction nor was any  need to find out whether the said workmen mentioned in the  list attached  to the written statement filed by the appellant dated  7.7.1978 worked  for the Corporation at the relevant time and that matter was settled by the judgment of this Court dated 28.2.85 rendered in C.A. No.1055(NL)/81. On the question  as to  whether the  identification directed by this Court  vide judgment  dated 17.1.1990 in C.A. No.155/90 has been  made properly by the Tribunal, we are of the view, in the  light of  our earlier  order dated 4.5.1995, that we should proceed on the basis that the finding of the Tribunal in this  regard is  vitiated. The  counsel for the appellant submitted before  us that  the  concerned  workmen  produced before the Tribunal the following to prove their identity: 1.   Identity Cards  issued by the Food Corporation of India (attested by one of the officers of the Corporation). 2.   Permit Slips  issued by the Corporation at the relevant time. 3.   Ration Cards issued to the workmen. 4.   Certificates issued by the Commissioner, Panchayats. From the  specimen of  the xerox  copy of the identity card, (all of  them similar) we find that apart from the signature of the  workmen concerned,  it was  attested by  the  labour union official  and  also  by  the  official  of  the  first respondent Corporation. This fact was not denied at the time of hearing.  We should bear in mind the undisputed fact that the identity cards are prepared by the Management and signed by one  of their  officials. In this case, it is proved that one Sri  S. Dutta  (WW 2) has signed in most of the identity cards. Sri  S. Dutta  is an official of the Corporation. His signature is admitted (page 12 of the paper book, Vol. II). 12.  We are  also  informed  that  documents  like  the  Pay sheets, deduction  of Provident  Fund  Contribution,  Hajira Sheets, xerox  copies of  Permit  Slips,  original  list  of workmen  working   with  the   Corporation,   published   on 12.12.1978 by the Corporation, which should admittedly be in the possession  of  the  Corporation  and  directed  by  the Tribunal  to   be  produced,   were  not   produced  by  the Corporation. It seems that the Management filed an affidavit stating that  the documents  are not in their possession and the Tribunal  stated that  the plea of the appellant to call for  the   documents  does  not  arise.  That  such  primary documents should  be and are available with the Corporation, cannot be denied, in view of the facts highlighted or stated by  this   Court  in   the  earlier  judgment  in  C.A.  No. 1055(NL)/81. The  Tribunal abdicated  its duty in not taking effective or  proper steps  to obtain  the said  crucial and primary  documents.   In  the   circumstances,  an   adverse inference was  called for,  against the  Corporation for non production of vital primary documents. 13.  In  disposing  of  C.A.No.1055(NL)/81  this  Court  had occasion to  advert to  the fact  that the  names of workmen engaged in handling foodgrains at the Siliguri Depot will be mustered in  a Register  and  his  daily  out-turn  will  be specified. And  further the  payment will  be made  by piece rate and  bill will be prepared setting out the names of the workmen and the out-turn of each, by the Depot Staff who are



regular employees  of the  Corporation; and the payment will be made  by the Corporation and the same will be distributed to each  workman according  to the piece rate, and the bills with the  acquittance in  original would  be filed  with the Corporation. This Court also observed that the work rendered by each  workman had  to  be  entered  in  the  muster  roll register and  each workman  is required to be a party to the acquittance roll  to be  retained by  the Corporation.  Such registers, which  should be  available with the Corporation, were not  even produced   before  the  Tribunal.  The  first respondent Corporation  could  have  demonstrated  that  the presumption flowing  from the various identity cards, issued by it,  permit slips,  ration  cards  and  the  certificates issued by  the Commissioner  of Punchayats  produced by  the workmen, did  not relate to either the 464 workmen or any of them, and  who were  mentioned in  the list filed along with the written  statement of  the Union dated 7.7.1978. No such attempt was  made by the Corporation, which at all times was in possession of the above primary records in the matter. It is  evident  that  the  best  evidence  available  with  the Corporation was withheld. 14.  We  have   already  adverted   to  the  fact  that  the Corporation did  not challenge the list filed along with the written statement  of the  appellant dated  7.7.1978; on the other hand,  it was  admitted in the written statement filed by the  Corporation. On  an examination  of two illustrative cases (persons  who were  present in  Court along with their identity cards),  we are convinced, that the order passed by the Tribunal  that "none"  of the  287 workmen  were able to establish that  they were employees of the Siliguri Depot of the Food Corporation of India, is a palpable error. 15.  The judgment  of this  Court in C.A. No. 1055(NL)/81 is conclusive to  show that  464 persons attached to "the list" are workmen of the Corporation entitled to the benefit given by the  judgment. The  only further  question that  fell for consideration as  a result  of the  later order  of remit in C.A.No. 155/90 was "the identity of the 464 workmen" and not wether they  or any  of them,  had been in employment at the relevant time.  On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal we are inclined  to hold  that the Tribunal wholly misconceived the nature  of the  orders passed  by this Court in C.A. NO. 1055(NL)/81 and  C.A.No.155/90 and  in  conducting  a  fresh appraisal as  to whether  all or  any of  the "464"  workmen included in  the list  were in employment of the Corporation at the  relevant time.  The approach  made by  the Tribunal, even  in  the  matter  of  marshalling  or  considering  the material placed  before it,  seems to  be  wrong    for  the following reasons.  The Tribunal was apparently of the view, that there  should be  "evidence" to prove the facts, as per the provisions  of the  Evidence Act;  It  is  not  so.  The Tribunal is not a Court. There should be only ’material’ and not evidence  as required  by the  Evidence Act.  It appears that a  good many  witnesses were examined by another member who was  the predecessor  of the  member, who  delivered the final award.  The Tribunal  has stated  that the evidence of the petitioner  (workmen) is  not  "duly  proved",  "legally proved" or  proved "beyond  reasonable doubt". This approach was also  wrong. The  only question  was whether on weighing the probabilities,  the materials  placed by  the petitioner was  acceptable  or  rendered  probable.  The  Tribunal  has considered at  length the minute particulars in the case, in the light  of the  requirements of  the Evidence Act and has made  much   of  the   minor  lapses   in   evaluating   the probabilities. There are vague generalisations and an unreal or impractical  approach to  the materials  available before



it. Even  where the predecessor has found resemblance in the signatures of  the identity  cards with  other records,  the later Tribunal  has discarded  cards as  falling under  four groups  -  ’no  resemblance’,  ’some  resemblance’,  ’little resemblance’ and  ’clear resemblance’  - based  on no  clear guidelines or principles and has based the conclusion at its ipse dixit.  To crown  all this,  the Tribunal  has  totally failed to  note that  the  Management  has  no  explanation, regarding workmen  other than  "203" admitted  by it, and it did not  produce any  person bearing the name in the list of "464" not did it offer any explanation, regarding such other persons (other than 203). 16.  On a  review of  the above  facts and circumstances, we are satisfied  that the order of the Tribunal is infirm. The only question  is, what is the further order to be passed to reach a  finality in  this long drawn litigation. The matter is pending for nearly two decades. No doubt, counsel for the Corporation invited  our attention  to certain  difficulties involved in  "conclusively" determining  the identity of the persons as  per orders  of  this  Court  dated  28.2.85  and 17.1.90. Be  that as  it may,  long lapse  of time cannot be ingnored and  this Court  cannot shirk its responsibility in resolving the  issue on  the basis  of  available  material, however, difficult  or arduous  it may be. Afterall, it is a "human problem"  that calls  for an  urgent decision. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances and to do  complete justice in the matter, we hold that the only way to resolve this issue is to direct the appellant, (trade union),   through    a   responsible   office-bearer,   duly authorised, to  identify the  persons,  whose  identity  are questioned  or   disputed  by   the  Management.   On   such identification being  made by  the appellant, the Management shall reinstate  them in service forthwith and also continue to employ  such workmen,  who shall  be entitled  to all the rights, liabilities,  obligations and  duties as  prescribed for the workmen by the Corporation, as held by this Court in C.A.No. 1055(NL)/81 dated 28.2.1985. We would, however, like to stress  the fact,  that  the  concerned  officer  of  the appellant  Union,   should  act  with  extreme  candour  and circumspection. If  it turns  out later,  that any  lapse or fraud in  the  matter  was  attempted  or  perpetuated,  the concerned official  of the  Union  along  with  the  persons identified,  will  be  liable  to  prosecution  and  further penalties. This  order shall  be implemented within a period of 3 months from today. For working out the above, the first respondent shall  issue a  detailed notice in writing to the appellant, with particulars, asking the appellant to produce the concerned  workmen, along  with their identity cards and such  other  records  available  with  them  and  then,  the representative of  the  appellant  Union  shall  in  writing endorse  by   a  certificate  the  identity  of  the  person concerned, as one covered by "the list" of 464 workmen (List filed along with the written statement dt. 7.7.1978). 17.  In disposing  of C.A. NO. 1055(NL)/81 by Judgment dated 28.2.1985, this  Court did not award any backwages. The only direction given  was that  the Tribunal must satisfy whether any of  the workmen  was denied  work  and  consequently  it resulted in  loss of  wages. We  direct that  such of  those persons, who  are properly  identified as  coming within the list in  the manner  stated hereinabove, shall be reinstated in service  forthwith. We  are also satisfied, on an overall view of the matter, that the 1st respondent Corporation - an instrumentality of the State - has unnecessarily delayed the final disposal  of the entire proceedings. If one expected a "fair and  impartial" deal from the 1st respondent, he would



feel disappointed.  We are  constrained to  say so,  on  the facts of this case. So, we further direct that such of those persons reinstated after identification, as indicated above, shall also  be paid  back wages  calculated at  70%  of  the "normal earnings", from the date of the expiry of the period specified in  C.A.No.155/90, i.e.,  17.4.1990, till they are reinstated. It  is ordered  accordingly. We,  therefore, set aside the  order of  the Tribunal appealed against and allow this appeal in the manner indicated hereinabove with costs - costs quantified  at Rs. 25,000/-payable to appellant by the 1st respondent Corporation.