' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner-management seeks leave to appeal against Federal Service Tribunal judgment dated 17-5-2005 allowing back-benefits to respondent No,1 for the period he remained out of job before his reinstatement.
2. In Civil Appeals Nos.1681 and 1682 of 2003 filed by both the parties against order of reinstatement without back-benefits of the petitioner, this Court vide judgment dated 6-5-2004 allowed the appeal of the respondent in relation to withholding back-benefits thereby setting aside order of the Tribunal depriving him of the back-benefits and directing treatment of intervening period as "leave of the kind due". The appeal was remanded to the Tribunal for re-consideration of the matter and assignment of plausible and convincing reasons on the question of withholding the back-benefits.
Appeal of the petitioner-management challenging reinstatement of the respondent was, however, dismissed.
3. From the trend of arguments advanced by Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and not controverted by the respondent, it is evident that, in post-remand proceedings, no enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal into the question whether the respondent remained without any job and not doing any lawful business during the intervening period, .Spread- over a decade, inasmuch as, neither any oral evidence was recorded by the Tribunal nor was it recorded on affidavits. The judgment of the Tribunal, thus, suffers from inherent legal defect and is not supported by any material on record justifying the reversal of the earlier view of the Tribunal. It is our considered opinion that after the remand of the case, the Tribunal ought to have called upon the parties to adduce in order to arrive at a definite conclusion whether the respondent remained totally idle, not performing any job and not gainfully employed anywhere else during this period. This aspect of the case was not adverted to at all and escaped the attention of the Tribunal, which can hardly be appreciated.
4. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law with the consequence that the petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside and case is remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of observations recorded hereinabove.
5. Since the parties have been litigating for more than a decade hopefully the Tribunal shall decide the issue afresh as early as practicable and preferably within a period of six months. No order as to costs.