1 14 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO. 335/2002. Director Central State Farm, Sardargarh Vs. State & Ors. .. Date of Order :: 23rd February 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Anil Bhandari, for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Saluja ] Mr. Shravan Singh ], for the respondent No.3. ..... BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of Writ Petition No. 3477/1994 against an order dated 22.11.2001 passed in WP No. 3477/1994 by the learned Single Judge. 3. The matter arises, in the circumstances, that the respondent-workman was removed by the appellant- employer whereupon, industrial dispute was raised and the learned Tribunal vide award 02.03.1993 found that the removal of the workman is violative of Section 25-F, G & H of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also found that the principle of last come first go has not been complied with. In that view of the matter the reference was decided in the 2 manner that while finding the removal to be not valid the removal order dated 30.07.1983 was set aside and workman was ordered to be reinstated with full back-wages and continuity of service. 4. This award was challenged by the employer by way of filing writ petition and learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition, the challenge to reinstate was negatived and the workman was directed to be reinstated, however, the entitlement of workman for back-wages was reduced to 50% w.e.f. the date of reference till reinstatement and it was further directed that if arrears of back-wages are not paid, the workman shall be entitled further to 12% interest on the said arrears. 5. It is informed by learned counsel for the respondents that in pursuance of the impugned order workman has been reinstated, however, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the workman was reinstated under threat of contempt proceedings but reinstatement has been effected subject to outcome of this appeal, and therefore, fact of reinstatement is of no consequence. 6. The matter was heard for sometime, however, after realising the fact that the workman has already been reinstated way back in 2001, both the learned counsel agreed that the appeal be disposed of in the manner that the award of the learned labour court be modified as if it awards only reinstatement without back-wages. 3 7. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of and the award of learned labour court so also the judgment of learned Single Judge is modified as if the award is for reinstatement of the workman only with continuity in service. 8. It is clarified, however, that if during intervening period the back-wages have been paid to the workman then the employer will not be entitled to recover it back from the workman. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (A.M. SAPRE),J. /Mohan/