Lahiri, J. :- What is Justice, wails the workman, if no relief or inadequate relief is granted to him although on the own showing of the Industrial Tribunal he was hired and fired by the Management ? Is it justice, if the tribunal having held that the termination of his services was illegal and void yet does not grant him the relief of reinstatement with back wages -without any justifiable reason ? These are precisely the ques­tions posed by the workman in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar in Reference case No. 19 of 1982. The Tribunal has held that the services of Shri Sunil Bardhan, the workman, were illegally terminated yet it refused the reliefs of reinstate­ment and back wages, instead paid compensation less than what the workman was entitled to as back wages. It is contended before us that the refusal to reinstate the workman with back wages is unjust, unreasonable and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The aggrieved workman prayed for the reliefs to which he was entitled under the Constitution and the law and the refusal or denial of his legitimate right was "injustice". 2. THE FACTUAL MATRIX NECESSARY FOR DISPOSAL OF THE QUESTIONS POSED ARE AS FOLLOWS. Shri Sunil Bardhan, ''the workman'' was appointed by the Management on 1.5.1964. He obtained 4 days' leave from 6.2.80 and could report for duty on 11.2.1980 but the management did not allow him to rejoin although the delay was due to circumstances beyond his control. The workman made many entreaties to the Management but to no avail. Ultimately the Management by its letter dated 17.6.80 informed the workman that as he bad abandoned the job he would not be treated as its employee with effect from that date. The workman was drawing, at all relevant time, a tiny basic wages at the rate of Rs. 180/-per month. His case was espoused by his Union who got a reference for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. The State Government by notification dated 26.8.80 referred the following disputes to the Industrial Tribunal at Silchar, Assam for adjudication. (1) Whether the management of Mis. Oriental Talkies Centra 1 Road, Silchar are justified in verbally terminating the services of Shri Sunil Bardban, Gatekeeper with effect from 12.2.80 ? The State Government by notification dated 26.8.80 referred the following disputes to the Industrial Tribunal at Silchar, Assam for adjudication. (1) Whether the management of Mis. Oriental Talkies Centra 1 Road, Silchar are justified in verbally terminating the services of Shri Sunil Bardban, Gatekeeper with effect from 12.2.80 ? (2) If not, is the said workman entitled to reinstate­ment with back wages or any other relief in lieu of re­instatement ? On registration of the case, notices were issued to the parties. The Union claimed that the services of the workman were illegally terminated and prayed for reinstatement with back wages and other benefits. The Management filed written statement and claimed that the termination was valid but did not put for­ward any plea as to why the workman should not be reins­tated and paid back wages-, if the termination was found to be illegal, void and without jurisdiction. In short, the Management contested Issue No. I but did not contest the claim of the workman for reinstatement with back wages covered by Issue No. 2. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management and the workman examined himself. The Tribunal held that the Reference was valid, it had jurisdiction to adjudi­cate the dispute and on consideration of the materials on record rejected the plea of the Management that the workman had abandoned the job. It held that the impugned order of termi­nation of the workman was void, illegal, unjustified and without jurisdiction. However, while considering the question of relief the Tribunal did not reinstate the workman with back wages but awarded compensation of Rs. 500/-without prejudice to the claim of the workman for gratuity, provident Fund benefits etc. We extract the relevant portion of the award against which the petitioner has come up before this Court. "For reasons stated above I hold that the termination has been unjustified and he is entitled to reinstatement. But the workman on his own showing has rehabilitated himself by establishing shop. He was drawing a monthly pay of Rs. 180/- at the relevant time. In the above circumsta­nces, instead of ordering reinstatement I direct the mana­gement to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand only) without prejudice to the workman's claim for gratuity provident fund benefit etc. as admissible under his service conditions''. He was drawing a monthly pay of Rs. 180/- at the relevant time. In the above circumsta­nces, instead of ordering reinstatement I direct the mana­gement to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand only) without prejudice to the workman's claim for gratuity provident fund benefit etc. as admissible under his service conditions''. (Emphasis added) It is thus seen that the Tribunal held that the termination was unjustified and further held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement. However, the reliefs of reinstatement and back wages were denied on the score that the workman had "rehabi­litated himself by establishing a shop". Ordinarily the workman was entitled to reinstatement plus back wages at the rate of Rs. 180/- per month, which came to Rs. 7560/- on the date of making the award on 8.8.83. As such, the compensation was admittedly far less than the back wages. 3. It is apposite to mention here that Sec. 11 A of the In­dustrial Disputes Act, 1947, "the Act" for short, came into force with effect from December 15, 1978, which empowered the Tri­bunal to interface with the managerial Power of imposing penalty. The Tribunals can interfere with the quantum of penalty and reduce its rigors. The managerial power of imposing pen­alty has been expressly made justifiable by the Industrial courts and Tribunals. In other words the range of amplitude of the power of the Tribunal has been enlarged and they can award appropriate reliefs according to the exigencies of the situation. 4. In the case in hand the firm finding of the Tribunal that the management was not justified in terminating the servi­ces of the workman has become final. The Management has not questioned the validity of the finding. The Tribunal has also reached the conclusion that the workman "is entitled to reinstatement but the reliefs of reinstatement with back wages were denied to the workman, instead only compensation of Rs. 5000/- was granted to the workman. In his written statement the wor­kman prayed for reinstatement with back wages and other reli­efs. It is apposite to mention that the management did not plead in their written statement that if the order of termination was invalid or illegal the workman should not be reinstated with full back wages on any just and equitable ground. In his written statement the wor­kman prayed for reinstatement with back wages and other reli­efs. It is apposite to mention that the management did not plead in their written statement that if the order of termination was invalid or illegal the workman should not be reinstated with full back wages on any just and equitable ground. The ma­nagement adduced no evidence to show why the workman should not be reinstated with back wages, if the impugned order of termination was set aside. It is thus seen that a poor workman drawing wages @ Rs. 180/- per month plus other benefits desired to get himself reinstated and prayed for back wages add the struggle of the workman was for just and equitable reliefs. How­ever, the Tribunal instead of granting the reliefs substituted it by way of compensation amounting to Rs. 5000/ but the minimum back wages of the workman came to Rs. 7560/- on the date of making of the award i.e., 8.8.83. It is thus seen that the Tri­bunal denied the workman the relief of reinstatement to a secu­red job and paid compensation which was far less than the back wages. What was the fault of the workman ? Shortly put. the fault of the workman was that during the forced unemployment, to avoid death by starvation, he helped his brother and sister to run a 'pan shop' (betal shop) and earn his bread to sustain himself. Should he starve to death ? Was it a crime to help his brother and sister to run a petty 'pan shop' and honorably ask for his bread ? Should a thrown out workman die of starvation ? How is it possible for a poor workman earning Rs. 150/- per mo­nth to fight a litigation ? There was no evidence that the shop was his own and/or he could "rehabilitate himself''. The work­man in his deposition stated that he was unemployed but hone­stly stated that "I have been holding a pan shop with the help of my brother and silted and maintaining myself" So an illegally dismissed workman with no bank balance or a tiny purse sho­uld starve. Should he deprived of the reliefs of reinstatement with back wages. If he begs to sustain himself ? Is it justice and equity to deprive the reliefs for managing to sustain himself and fight the litigation against the" powerful employer ? Should he deprived of the reliefs of reinstatement with back wages. If he begs to sustain himself ? Is it justice and equity to deprive the reliefs for managing to sustain himself and fight the litigation against the" powerful employer ? These are the questions which require consideration in the instant case. 5. Mr. B. K. Acharyia, learned counsel for the manage­ment has strenuously contended that this Court cannot, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, quash or set aside the order awarding relief and direct the Tribunal to re-consider the same. We are of the opinion that this court can examine whether the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction vested in it by law. In our opinion, if the Tribunal while awarding the reliefs or refusing to award reliefs acts without juris­diction or violates the procedure established by law or goes aga­inst the well-settled law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court can in exercise of its writ jurisdiction quash the order and remit the matter to the Tribunal for disposal in acc­ordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. We have reached the conclusion on the authority of the following decisions of the Supreme Court-(1) Kalyani (P. H.) vs. AIR France, (1963) 1 LLJ 679 (683) (SC) : AIR 1963 SC 1755 (2) Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Its Workmen, (1963) II LLJ 18(82) (SC); (3) Bengal Bhatde Coal Co. Ltd vs. Ram Prabesh Singh; (1963) I LLJ 291 (294) (SC) : AIR 1964 SC 486 (4) Hind cons­truction & Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. Their Workman, (1965) 1 LLJ 462 (SC): AIR 1965 SC 917 ; (5) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. A.K. Roy, (1970) I LLJ 228 (SC) : AIR 1970 SC 1401 ; (6) Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and Ors. vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others (1980) 2 SCC 593 : AIR 1980 SC 1896 . In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd (supra No. 6) Krishna Iyer J. observed that the High Court could in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution quash similar order, if it was vitiated by the fundamental flaws and gross carriage of justice, absence of legal evidence and the like. Iyer, J. held that the High Court could quash the order and grant appropriate relief. Iyer, J. held that the High Court could quash the order and grant appropriate relief. However, Koshal, J. ruled that the High Court could not sit as a Court of appeal over the award and it could only quash the order and remit the matter back to the Tribunal or the arbitrator. In (7) Jitendra Singh\Rathor vs. Shri Baidhyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. and Anr. AIR 1984 SC 976 , the Tribunal had directed reinstate­ment of the workman but awarded only half of his back wages and other benefits. The employer filed a writ petition to the High Court which quashed the order of reinstatement and dire­cted payment of compensation 'and quantified it to Rs. 15,000/-Tbe workman appealed to the Supreme Court. Ranganath Misra, J. speaking for the Court held that when the order of termination of services was found to be bad and the reinstatement was directed, the workman was entitled to full back wages unless for any particular reason the whole or part of it could be asked to be withheld. It has been further held that withholding of back wages amounts to penalty. The appeal was accepted, the order of the High Court was quashed and the workmen were reinstated with full back wages and other benefits from December 24, 1979. It is thus seen that this Court has jurisdiction to quash such an award and remit the matter for fresh disposal. It is also perti­nent to observe that withholding of back wages amounts to pen­alty. However, in that case it was justified on the ground that the tribunal while directing reinstatement kept the delinquency of the workman in view and withheld payment of half of the back wages. We are, therefore, of the view that this Court has jurisdiction to consider the questions posed by the petitioner and if necessary to remit the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the issue in accordance with the law. 6. The sole point urged by Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the workman was legally entitled to rein­statement with full back wages. Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workman must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workman. It is as if the order has never been in existence, and accordingly, the workman is entitled to reinstatement and back wages. Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workman must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workman. It is as if the order has never been in existence, and accordingly, the workman is entitled to reinstatement and back wages. There may be exceptional circumstances which might make it impossible or wholly inequitable, vis-a-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages say, where the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums or the workman concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so forth. In such situations, there is vestige of discretion left in the Tribunal to make appropriate consequential orders. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (8) Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd v. Workers, (1951) IILLJ 314 (L. A. T.) : (1951-52) 3 F. J. R. 265; (9) Punjab National Bank v. Their workmen (1959) II LLJ 666 : AIR 1960 SC 160 ; (10) Assam Oil Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1960) 1 LLJ 587 : AIR 1960 SC 1264 ; (11) Samnuggur Jute Factory Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, (1964) I LLJ. 634 (SC) (12) Dommur Dullang Tea Estate v. The Workmen, C. A. No. 516 of 1955 decided by the Supreme Court on 26.10.1967; (13) Ruby General Insurance..Co. Ltd. v. P. P. Chopra, (1970) I LLJ 63 (SC-1969) 3 SCC 653: Hindustan Steel Limited v. A. K, Roy, AIR 1970 SC 1401 , 115 Management of Panitola Tea Estate v. Its Workmen, (1971) I LLf. 233; AIR 1971 SC 2171 ; (1(5) Francis Klein and Company Limited v. Their Workmen, (1971) II LLJ 615 : AIR 1971 SC 2414 ; (17) Work­man of Assam Match Company Limited v. Labour Court, (1975) II LLJ 279; (18) Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 422 : 1980 Lab I. C. 1292. It is thus seen that only in exceptional cases there is vestige of discretion left in the Tribunal to mould the relief according to the exigencies of the situation. There is no evidence adduced by the management that the industry was closed or it was in severe financial doldrums and, therefore, it was not possi­ble to reinstate the workman. It is thus seen that only in exceptional cases there is vestige of discretion left in the Tribunal to mould the relief according to the exigencies of the situation. There is no evidence adduced by the management that the industry was closed or it was in severe financial doldrums and, therefore, it was not possi­ble to reinstate the workman. We are, therefore, to consider whether there is any finding that it was inequitable to di­rect reinstatement with full back wages. There is no evidence nor any finding that the workman secured better or other employ­ment elsewhere. He was unemployed throughout, but to earn his food and sustain himself, he helped his brother and sister to run a pan shop. Was it a fault or wrong committed by the voice-man for which he should be denied his legitimate rights? Was there any just and equitable ground for exercising the discre­tion and granting a modest compensation far less than the back wages and to deny the relief of reinstatement to the workman, In Hindustan Steel Ltd. (supra No.5) it has been held by the Supreme Court that while considering the question of granting relict" the Tribunal must exercise the discretion judicially in ac­cordance with the well-recognised principles in that regards; it has to examine carefully the circumstances of the case and de­cide whether the case is one of those exceptions to the general rule. If the Tribunal, while exercising discretion, does not take mote of the pertinent facts and circumstances or acts in breach of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court it would be a case of non-exercise of the discretion vested in it by law. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. (supra No. 5) their Lordships observed that when there had been strained relations between the employee and the management or where the conduct and behaviour of the workman were found to be unsatisfactory compensation could be awarded in lieu of reinstatement. In the instant case, there is BO material to show any strained relationship between employer and the employee nor was there any misconduct or misbehavior of the workman nor was there any material that the workman was guilty of activities subversive or prejudicial to the interest of the management. As such, it is difficult to hold that the Tribunal was justified in deviating from the general rule of granting relief of reinstatement with back wages. As such, it is difficult to hold that the Tribunal was justified in deviating from the general rule of granting relief of reinstatement with back wages. In (19) Management of monghyr Factory of JTC Ltd. Monghyr, Bihar vs. The presiding officer, Labour Court Patna (Bihar) and ors., AIR 1978 SC 1428 , on perusal of the service records and the relevant materials their Lordships held that the workman was not entitled to reinstate­ment but granted compensation in lieu thereof. Mr. Acharyya, learned counsel for the Management has relied on (20) Drug District Metal and Engineering Works' Union vs. Managing Part­ner, Bhilai Construction Company, Industrial estate, Bhilai District, Durg, Madhya Pradesh and others, (1982) 3 SCC 586 (1) and sub­mits that if the workman is ''gainfully employed'' he is not entitled to any back wages. A bare perusal of the decision clearly shows that the workmen were reinstated but as they were employed during "the enforced unemployment" and earned some income they were not given "back wages''. The workman preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. Their Lordships remitted the matter to the Labour Court to consider whether the workmen were ''gainfully employed'' or not. Even when the workmen were gainfully employed their right to reinstate­ment was not denied by the Labour Court. It was also held by the Supreme Court that if they were found to be "gainfully employed'' they would not get anything by way of back wages. In (21) Murari Mohan Deb vs. Secretary to the Government of India and ors. (1985) 3 SCC 120 the relief of compensation was granted because the workman had already attained the age of superannuation and it was impossible to reinstate him but their Lordships granted relief by way of compensation of Rs. 1 lac having regard to the workman's meager monthly salary. The salary of the employee was Rs. 260-495/-. The award of compensa­tion was far above the back wages to which the employee was entitled to. 1 lac having regard to the workman's meager monthly salary. The salary of the employee was Rs. 260-495/-. The award of compensa­tion was far above the back wages to which the employee was entitled to. In (22) Jaswant Singh vs. Pepsu Roadways transport Corporation & Another, (1984) 1 SCC 35 : AIR 1984 SC 355 the petitioner consumed intoxicating liquor and drove his vehicle which endangered the safety of the vehicle and the user of the road, accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Labour Court was justified in reinstating the workman, but as he was undisciplined and did not keep himself within the bounds of well-disciplined conduct expected of a bus driver as a penalty it was directed that he should not be entitled to back wages. Even under such situation the reinstatement was not denied but as a measure of punishment or penalty the driver was not granted back wages. In (23) Abinash Chandra Gautam vs. Union Territory of Tripura and Another, AIR 1984 SC 320 the order of discharge was held to be illegal. Their Lordships directed reinstatement with back wages. The evidence transpired that the appellant, during the relevant period, obtained in employ­ments as a teacher on a salary of Rs. 100/- per month from January, 1955. Accordingly, their Lordships directed that while computing the total back wages payable to the employee the amount earned by him from January, 1955 @ Rs. 100/- per month thought be deducted but the balance should be paid to him with interest @ 12% per annum. The appellant was also awarded cost of Rs. 5,000/-. It is thus seen that after a workman is dismissed or discharged he is entitled to earn his livelihood and that can not be a ground not to reinstate him. But any amount earned may be deducted from the back wages. How­ever, the residue should be paid with appropriate interest. In (24) Sant Raj and Another v. O. P. Sing In and Am., AIR 1985 SC 617 it has been held that where termination of services is found to be void and illegal, in the field of industrial relations a declaration follows that the workman continues to be in ser­vice and has to be reinstated with full back wages. In (24) Sant Raj and Another v. O. P. Sing In and Am., AIR 1985 SC 617 it has been held that where termination of services is found to be void and illegal, in the field of industrial relations a declaration follows that the workman continues to be in ser­vice and has to be reinstated with full back wages. The Labour court or Tribunal has discretion to award compensation instead of reinstatement if the exigencies of the situation ere unusual and ex­ceptional nature so as to make reinstatement inexpedient and impro­per but the discretion should not be arbitrary, vague or fanciful. While considering the contour of discretionary power of the Tri­bunal their Lordships have held that the discretion must be ex­ercised according to the rules of reason and justice and not according to private opinion, according to law and not humour. It can not be arbitrary, vague, fanciful but legal, regular and it must be exercised within the limit to which an honest man to the dis­charge of his office ought to find himself, and, relied on (25) Sharp v. Wakefield, (1891) AC 173 and (26) Jaisinghani v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1427 . Their Lordships held that instead of reinstating the workman under an unwilling, if not hostile emplo­yer adequate compensation would meet the reads of justice and granted adequate compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to each workman. The compensation was far above the total wages which the workman would have earned, at least Rs. 40,000/- over the amount of the back wages. The case is an illustration to show that the compensation mast be higher than the actual back wages. In (27) Chandu lal v. The Management of Mr. Pan American World Airways Inc., AIR 1985 SC1128, Panganath Misra, J. speaking for the Court held that compensation in lieu of reinstatement must be worked out considering the period of past employment and future terms of employment. The workman was out of em­ployment for little more than eleven years. Keeping in view the fact that the workman if restored to the services would have been assured of employment for future term of years and the fact that he would have been entitled to back wages for the period of unemployment it was directed that the workman should be paid compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. Keeping in view the fact that the workman if restored to the services would have been assured of employment for future term of years and the fact that he would have been entitled to back wages for the period of unemployment it was directed that the workman should be paid compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. In Sant Raj (supra No. 24) the retrenchment was invalid, and, the workman was entitled to reinsta­tement but in the interest of the workman their Lordships granted fought corporation. In (28) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Shambhu Nath Mukherjee, AIR 1985 SC 141 the physical reinstatement of the workman become impossible by passing away of the con­cerned workman and, accordingly, their Lordships directed that the workman was entitled to the wages till his death and the employer was directed to pay Rs. 1,10,000/- including the cost to the widow of the deceased. The said amount was over and above the amount of Rs. 46,151-60 which bad already been paid to the workman. 7. An apercu of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in respect of the relief to which a workman is entitled to when the termination of his services is found to be invalid by the In­dustrial Court; (1) When the impugned order of termination is set aside the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages; (2) There may be exceptional circumstances which might make It impossible or wholly inequitable to direct reins­tatement i.e.- (i) where ''the industry" has been closed down or totte­ring under the pressure of severe financial doldrums; (ii) when there had been strained relationship between the concerned workman and the management; (iii) where the past conduct of the workman exhibited that he was guilty of subversive activities prejudicial to the interest of the management; (iv) where the workman has passed away; (v) where the workman already attained the age of super­annuation; (vi) when it is inequitable to reinstate the workman under an unwilling, if not hostile employer' (vii) where the workman has secured better and other assu­red employment elsewhere; (3) Where the services of the workman are of such na­ture and quality which required implicit faith and confidence in him but the materials disclosed that there were justifiable ground of loss of confidence by the management. In such cases instead of granting reinstatement compensation is payable to the workman. WHAT ABOUT BACK WAGES? In such cases instead of granting reinstatement compensation is payable to the workman. WHAT ABOUT BACK WAGES? (4) A workman under such situation is invariably entitled to back wages. However, some deduction or adjustment is permissible when it is proved that the workman earned some income during the period of enforced unemployment but (i) it should be reasonable deduction; or (ii) when the conduct of the workman was such that as a measure of penalty some amount should be deducted. All these are illustrative cases. To refuse the ultimate relief or not to grant adequate relief amounts to miscarriage of justice. Every decision not to reinstate a workman and/or not to pay full back wages must be supported by strong reasons otherwise it would be a case of non-exercise of the discretion vested in the Industrial Courts by law and the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 8. In the instant case there is no reason or justification for not reinstating the workman. Even the Management did not plead and/or adduce any evidence to establish that the workman was not entitled to the relief of reinstatement. The relief of reinsta­tement can not be denied if the workman worked somewhere else to sustain himself. Further the compensation in lieu of reinstate­ment must be just and equivalent. It cannot be equal to or less than the back wages. There is no material to show that the concerned workman was "gainfully employed" somewhere. It was just a case of stop-gap arrangement for his daily bread un­til he gets back his job. There is no material that the workman procured "a secured job'' and/or drew larger amount than what he was earning as a workman. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal not to reinstate the workman having held that he was entitled to reinstatement was not exercised according to rules of reason and justice or according to law. It appears to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful. Similarly, there is no reason why the workman was not granted the back wages. The management was at fault in illegally terminating his services and in consequence thereof he bad to sustain himself. The workman helped his brother and sister to run a tiny pan shop to eke out his bread. It appears to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful. Similarly, there is no reason why the workman was not granted the back wages. The management was at fault in illegally terminating his services and in consequence thereof he bad to sustain himself. The workman helped his brother and sister to run a tiny pan shop to eke out his bread. It is appo­site to refer Rajinder Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, 1985 U.J. (S. C.) 465 : AIR 19S4 SC 1805 where the management took the plea that the workman was gainfully employed since the termina­tion of services and therefore he was not entitled to back wages. As in the instant case, the workman honestly admitted during his cross-examination that during his forced absence from employment since the date of termination of his services he was maintaining his family by helping his father-in-law who owned a coal depot, as he had no alternative source of maintaining the members of his family. Their Lordships observed : "If this is gainful employment, the employer can contend that the dismissed employee in order to keep his body and soul together had taken to begging and that would as well be a gainful employment. The gross perversity with which the employer had approached this case has left us stunned. If the employer after an utterly unsustainable termination order of service wants to deny back-wages on the ground that the appellant and the members of his family were staying with the father-in-law of the appellant as there was no alternative source of maintenance and durian, this period appellant was helping his father-in-law Tara Chand who had a coal-depot, it cannot be said that the appellant was gainfully employed. This was the only evidence in support of the submission that during his forced absence from service be was gainfully employed. This cannot be said to be gainful employment so as to re­ject the claim for back wages. There is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant was gainfully employed during the period of his absence from services Therefore the appellant would be entitled to full back-wages and all consequential benefits.'' Their Lordships reinstated the workman in service with full back wages and granted consequential benefits to which he would have been entitled to if he were in service. Their Lordships awar­ded cost of the appeal and quantified it at Rs. Their Lordships awar­ded cost of the appeal and quantified it at Rs. 3,000/- Indeed what a workman should do when he is thrown out of employ­ment ? Is he to starve and fight litigation against his formi­dable employer ? There is no evidence to support that the work­man rehabilitated himself. The workman frantically prayed for rei­nstatement. He was never employed by any one. There is no material to show that he secured a better job as the workman himself stated that he was still unemployed. It will be for the Tribunal to consider if the workman should be penalised for assisting his brother and sister to run a pan shop to earn his food, keep his body and soul together. It would be for the Tribunal to consider whether he should be penalised for assisting his brother and sister run the shop. It will be for the Tribunal to consider whether there is any material to show the income earned by the workman and if so what amount should be deducted, if any, from his back wages. It would be for the Tri­bunal to consider whether the conduct of the workman dis-en-titled him the ultimate relief of reinstatement with back wages. In the instant case, there is no reason ascribed by the Tribunal why the compensation was far less than the back wages when the workman was deprived of the reliefs of reinstatement as well as back wages. It would be for the Tribunal to consider whether the affected workman would be entitled to any interest and cost. We have made the observations as we find that there is no just appropriate reason for denying the relief of reinstatement back wages to the workman. We can not enter in to the merits of the case and substitute the findings of the Tribunal. We, therefore, quash the order of the Tribunal in respect of Issue No, 2 and remit the matter to the Tribunal to decide whether it was an exceptional case in which the reliefs should be refused and if so, to state the reasons thereof. The Tribunal shall be free to consider as to whether the workman would be entitled to reinstatement and/or back wages with interest and cost. No ob­servation made by us shall be binding on the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall be free to consider as to whether the workman would be entitled to reinstatement and/or back wages with interest and cost. No ob­servation made by us shall be binding on the Tribunal. We make it clear that insofar as the decisions in respect of Issue No. 1 we were not called upon to consider the correctness or validly there­of. The decision has become final. Learned counsel for the Ma­nagement has prayed that the management might be allowed to ad­duce fresh evidence. It would be open to the Tribunal to allow or not to allow the parties to adduce further evidence conside­ring the facts and circumstances of the case. It would be for the Tribunal to decide the question and accordingly; we do not render any order at this end. It is highly desirable that the ma­tter should be heard and disposed of within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the records of the case in view of the long delay in disposal of the case. 9. In the result the petition is accepted and for rendering | decisions on Issue No. 2 the matter is remitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with the law. We award cost of Rs. 500/- payable by the Management to the workman. The payment should be made before the commen­cement of the proceeding before the Tribunal.