JUDGMENT : Das Gupta, J. This appeal by four sister companies is against an award of the 7th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, directing reinstatement of 12 workmen and payment of subsistence allowance at 50% of their basic wages from May 4, 1957 till the date of reinstatment, less three months. 2. It appears that there were some disputes in the factories of the companies in April 1957. Police cases were started against these 12 and some other workmen. It was when these cases were pending that four separate agreements were arrived at between the Union representing the workmen and these four companies before a Conciliation Officer. This was on May 4, 1957, The agreement provided inter alia that (1) the workers against whom police cases were pending would remain suspended till the final disposal of the cases, (2) from May 4, 1957 till such dismissal the workers shall be paid 50% of wages as subsistence allowance; (3) the workmen against whom the cases finally resulted in conviction shall be dismissed from the service of the company and those who would be discharged or acquitted or dropped from the cases would be reinstated in their jobs with full benefits, less the monies received by them as subsistence allowance. The cases were disposed of on different dates - some on July 29, 1958, some on July 31, 1959 and one on January 27, 1963. All the cases ended in acquittal. 3. On April 21, 1960 the President of the Union wrote several letters to the employers asking for reinstatement of the workers in terms of the agreements of May 4, 1957. Nothing was mentioned in any of these, about the letters written by the employers to the Union on April 9, 1958 intimating their intention to terminate the settlement of May 4, 1957. As the Management declined to comply with the request of the Union in these letters, of the 21st April 1960 a dispute was raised. Ultimately, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, by an order of the Government of West Bengal dated December 4, 1961. The Reference mentioned the names of 29 workmen including the 12 with whom we are concerned in this appeal and stated the disputed thus: "Whether the following workmen are entitled to subsistence allowance and/or reinstatement in their services in view of the agreements dated the 4th May, 1957? The Reference mentioned the names of 29 workmen including the 12 with whom we are concerned in this appeal and stated the disputed thus: "Whether the following workmen are entitled to subsistence allowance and/or reinstatement in their services in view of the agreements dated the 4th May, 1957? If not, to what relief, if any, they are entitled?" 4. The claim of the workmen was resisted by the employers on two main grounds. The first was that the agreements of May 4, 1957 stood terminated with effect from June 9, 1958. Secondly, it was urged that even assuming that the workers were entitled to any benefit from these agreements no relief should be given to them as they had not reported for duty immediately on the disposal of the criminal cases, as they should have done. 5. The Tribunal held that with the termination of the settlement with effect from 9th June, 1958 by a notice under Section 9(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the rights and liabilities arising out of the settlement could not be enforced according to the strict letters of the settlement but even so, the workmen whose services had not been terminated by the Company would be entitled to reinstatement. It appears to have agreed with the Company's contention that if these workmen did not offer to rejoin their duty soon after the disposal of the criminal cases the company should not be asked to reinstate them. It therefore rightly addressed itself to the question whether the workman did come forward to claim reinstatement after the disposal of the criminal cases and dealt with the matter thus: "The workers who have given evidence in this case have stated that they came forward for reinstatement but they were straight away refused reinstatement by the General Manager of these companies, Shri Singal. It appears from the evidence that last of the criminal cases was disposed of on 27th January, 1960 (Vide Ext. 2(a) and the Union wrote letters to the Companies (Ext. 4 series) on 21 April 1960 asking for reinstatement of workers but there was no response to these letters. It appears from the evidence that last of the criminal cases was disposed of on 27th January, 1960 (Vide Ext. 2(a) and the Union wrote letters to the Companies (Ext. 4 series) on 21 April 1960 asking for reinstatement of workers but there was no response to these letters. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the Union did not act promptly in asking for reinstatement of the concerned workers and the workers voluntarily absented themselves from work and failed to report for work within a reasonable time after the disposal of the criminal cases. So, the plea that the workers themselves did not come up for reinstatement is absolutely unacceptable." 6. The main contention urged in support of the appeal is that the evidence on the record clearly shows that the workmen did not ask for reinstatement within a reasonable time after the disposal of the criminal cases against them. This is a question of fact and if there had been a clear finding of the Tribunal on this question we would not be prepared to consider the matter for ourselves. It appears that though at first sight the Tribunal sterns to be of opinion that the workmen did report themselves for work within a reasonable time after the disposal of the criminal case against them the finding is neither clear nor unambiguous. It has to be remembered in this connection that while cases against two out of the 12 workmen were disposed of in July 1958, cases against nine were disposed of in July 1959 and the case against one only was disposed of in January 1960. Each of these workmen who has given evidence has indeed claimed to have reported for duty within a few days from the disposal of the cases against him. While some say that they were not allowed to enter the factory premises at all, others say that they were able to meet the Manager but the manager declined to allow them to work. It is not clear whether this evidence that each of these workmen reported for duty claiming reinstatement within a few days after the disposal of the case against him has been believed by the Tribunal. But that is the real point to be decided. It is not clear whether this evidence that each of these workmen reported for duty claiming reinstatement within a few days after the disposal of the case against him has been believed by the Tribunal. But that is the real point to be decided. In the absence of any clear or definite finding on the point it has been necessary for us to examine the evidence for ourselves to decide this question. 7. Though, as we have just stated, these workmen claimed to have reported for duty immediately after the disposal of the criminal cases in which the particular workman was involved there is nothing in writing in support of this story. What documentary evidence we have got points definitely to a contrary conclusion. If it were true that the two workmen who were acquitted in July 1958 reported for duty claiming reinstatement within a short time after that and were refused reinstatement, as it is now stated, it is reasonable to think that they would report the matter to the Union and the Union would take it up with the Management. Similarly, also if the nine workmen - out of the present 12 - who were acquitted in July 1959 had reported themselves for duty within a few days thereafter but were refused reinstatement, it was reasonable to expect that the matter would have been brought to the knowledge of the Union and the Union would have written about it to the Management. No such letter appears to have been written. The President of the Union has in his evidence stated ... after the dispossal of the criminal cases, the concerned workers reported for duty to the concerned companies but the companies refused to reinstate them in terms of the agreement. Then I as President of the Union wrote letters to the companies requesting them to respect the agreement and grant reliefs accordingly." Exhibits 4 to 4 are claimed to be the office copies of those letters. All of these letters are dated April 21, 1960. On a reasonable reading of the President's evidence it becomes clear that it was only on April 21, 1960 that he wrote to the Company asking for reinstatement of the workmen in terms of the agreement and that this action was taken by him soon after the workmen reported to him that they had been refused reinstatement. 8. On a reasonable reading of the President's evidence it becomes clear that it was only on April 21, 1960 that he wrote to the Company asking for reinstatement of the workmen in terms of the agreement and that this action was taken by him soon after the workmen reported to him that they had been refused reinstatement. 8. It is interesting to see also that even in these letters the President did not state that it had been reported to him that the workmen had gone to the Management for reinstatement and such reinstatement had been refused. 9. On a consideration of all the circumstances and the probabilities, we are of opinion that the story that the workmen went to the factory to claim reinstatement at any time before April 1960 is not true. It is doubtful whether they went there even in April 1960. 10. That being the position, we do not see how the Management can be asked to reinstate them. The settlement of 4th May, 1957 entitled the workmen to reinstatement on their final acquittal in the criminal cases. Even apart from such Settlement there would be a good case for their claim of restatement as soon as they had been acquitted. But if after such acquittal the workmen preferred to remain away and did not ask for work, it is neither fair nor reasonable to ask the Management to comply with the demand for reinstatement made months any months after such acquittal. During this long period the employer has naturally employed new workmen and in the special circumstances of this case that fact cannot be altogether ignored. The reinstatement ordered by the Tribunal cannot therefore be sustained. For the same reason the Tribunal's order for payment to these workmen of suspension allowance till the date of their re-instatement must be set aside. It is however not disputed by the appellants that the workmen are entitled to such allowance at 50% of their basic wage from 4th May, 1957 till the date of their acquittal less what they have been paid. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in part, set aside the order of reinstatement made by the Tribunal and modify the order as regards payment of suspension allowance as mentioned above. There will be no order as to costs.