JUDGMENT : V. Bhargava, J. 1. The appellants, who have come up to this Court by special leave, were workmen employed by the respondent. They were all dismissed on the basis of an incident which happened about the 15th of January, 1961. That day viz. 15th January, 1961, was a Sunday. Makar Sankranti festival in that year fell on the 14th January, the original intention of having the holiday on Sunday, the 15th January, was altered and the respondent decided to give the holiday on 14th January and to make Sunday, the 15th January, a working day. Notices were, therefore, put up on the 12th of January showing that there would be a holiday on 14th of January and 15th of January would be a working day On 15th of January, the appellants, besides a large number of other workmen, did not do any work and, in fact, the appellants even persuaded others not to do work. Thereupon, proceedings were started by the respondent against the appellants for their dismissal and, after holding an enquiry, the order of dismissal was passed on 31st March, 1961. The dismissal was to take effect from 16th January, 1961. The ground for dismissal was that these appellants had gone on an illegal strike from 15th January to 19th January, 1961. The appellants pleaded that they had not gone on any strike and were prevented from work by a lock-out declared by the respondent An industrial dispute arose and it was referred to the Industrial Tribunal Gujarat, by the State Government by its order dated 20th August, 1963. The Tribunal gave its Award on 9th January. 1964, holding that the enquiry, which preceded the order of dismissal of the appellants, was not proper and fair and, consequently, the order of dismissal could not be upheld. Thereafter, the Tribunal proceeded to consider whether an order of reinstatement of the appellants should be passed and, for reasons recorded in its Award, the Tribunal held that this was not a proper case where reinstatement of the appellants should be ordered. The Tribunal, however, granted the appellants wages for six months on the basis that their dismissal had to be set aside because of the enquiry not being proper and fair. The Tribunal, however, granted the appellants wages for six months on the basis that their dismissal had to be set aside because of the enquiry not being proper and fair. The appellants in this appeal have claimed that there was no justification for the Tribunal to refuse their request for an order of reinstatement and, in any case, the Tribunal should have Awarded them back wages for the entire period from the date of dismissal up to the date of the Award This is the only point that arises in this appeal. 2. It was urged by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that once the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the enquiry was not proper and fair, a direction should automatically have followed for reinstatement of the appellants. In support of this proposition, learned counsel referred us to Samnuggur Jute Factory Company, Ltd. v. Workmen, (1964) 1 LLJ 634 . In that case, however, all that was held was that, if an order of dismissal is set aside by an Industrial Tribunal, the dismissed workmen should normally be reinstated; but, if special circumstances exist, it is not binding on the Tribunal to order reinstatement. In the present case, the Tribunal, in its Award, held that there was a strong probability that the appellants had gone on an illegal strike and that there was no lock-out as contended by them This finding was recorded on the basis of the documentary evidence which was placed before the Tribunal, though no oral evidence was tendered by either party. In his submissions before us, learned counsel for the appellants urged that these documents were not properly taken in evidence by the Tribunal and the Tribunal committed an error in recording its finding on the basis of those documents. In fact, it was suggested that these documents were admitted by the Tribunal in evidence, even though they were filed in the absence of the appellants. It, however, appears from the record of the order dated 1st January, 1964 that these documents were filed on 28th November, 1963 when the President of the Union, which had taken up the industrial dispute on behalf of the appellants, was present and it was in his presence that Shri S.J. Patel, appearing for the Company, produced the papers pertaining to the enquiry. It was also agreed that, on the next date fixed, the remaining papers, if any, were to be produced and then parties would make their submissions. The next date fixed was 1st January, 1964, and, on that day, no oral evidence was produced, while some further documents were produced by Shri S.J. Patel on behalf of the respondent. Both parties indicated that they did not want to lead any oral evidence. From these facts recorded by the Tribunal, it is clear that the documents were filed before the Tribunal by the respondent within the knowledge of the appellants and the appellants never objected to their being taken into consideration by the Tribunal. In fact, even on behalf of the appellants, it was stated that they did not want to produce any oral evidence which indicates that they were satisfied with pressing their case on whatever documentary evidence had been produced before the Tribunal. On that evidence, the Tribunal has come to the finding that the appellants had gone on an illegal strike and had prevented other workmen from doing their work on 15th January, 1961. Once the Tribunal came to this finding, it is impossible to say that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that this was a special case where it was not proper to order reinstatement of the appellants. We are unable to hold that the Tribunal committed any such error as would justify our interference with its order. 3. As we have mentioned earlier it was urged on behalf of the appellants that, in the alternative, the Tribunal should have Awarded them back wages for the entire period from 16th January, 1961 until the date of the Award, and, in support of this submission, reference was made to the decision of this Court in Kesoram Cotton Mills, Ltd. v. Gangadhar, (1963) 2 LLJ 371 . That case, however, is clearly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the workmen concerned were fully exonerated and it was because of this complete exoneration that the order for payment of full back wages was held justified. In the present case, as we have indicated earlier, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the conduct of the appellants was justified. On the other hand, the Tribunal held that they had gone on an illegal strike. In the present case, as we have indicated earlier, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the conduct of the appellants was justified. On the other hand, the Tribunal held that they had gone on an illegal strike. On that finding, the appellants could not claim that they were entitled to full wages for the entire period between the order of the dismissal and the date of the Award. The Tribunal has already granted them compensation by Awarding wages for six months on the basis of its finding that the order of dismissal was vitiated on the ground that the enquiry was not proper and fair. There is, therefore, no reason for interference with the order of the Tribunal. 4. However, learned counsel for the respondent stated before us that the respondent has agreed to make ex gratia payment of wages for an extra 1½ months to each workman concerned. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with this amendment in the amount payable as compensation which will now be equivalent to wages for 7½ months instead of 6 months. Parties will bear their own costs of this appeal.