CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the Khadi Gramodyog sangh, Dubalgundi Centre, Bidar District. It has suffered an award in Ref. No. 62/83 made by the Labour Court, Gulbarga. In that award, the first party-workman one manohar Rao who is respondent-2 in this proceeding, has been directed to be reinstated in his position as an employee of the petitioner-Gramodyog Sangh. ( 2 ) BEFORE the Labour Court, the stand taken was that the Gramodyog sangh was not carrying on an industry and therefore, the Court hid no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. That was negatived, having regard to the fact that the amendment brought about to exclude from the purview of the definition of industry, Khadi Gramodyog has not been given effect. ( 3 ) SIMILARLY, the plea of justifiable dismissal supported by evidence alleged before the Court was also negatived on the ground that there could not be any misappropriation merely because there was shortage of funds which had since then made good by deducting from the salary of the workman at the rate of rs 30/- p. m. In thit view of the matter, appreciating the evidence on record, it came to the conclusion that the termination was bad in law and the workman was entitled to reinstatement. Therefore, it ordered reinstatement with full back- wages. That the workman is reinstated is admitted. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended before this Court that as has bsen held by this Court and has been laid down by the Supreme Court in more than one case this Court may modify the order of the Court or the Tribunal under section 11a if this Court is satisfied that payment of full back wages dirtcted is not warranted in the circumstances of a particular case. Undoubtedly, the Supreme court has observed that in all cases of reinstatement in service, back wages must follow as a matter of course, unless exceptional circumstances will induce the Court to direct otherwise. From this it does not follow that the High Court under Article 220 and 227 may exercise that discretion which is vested only in the Court or the Tribunal U/s. 11 A. This has been clearly held to be so by the Supreme Court in the case of jitendra Singh Rathor v Shri Baidyanath ayurved Bhawan Limited and Another (AIR 1984 SC P. 976 ). In the said case the Supreme Court has ruled ;''under S. 11a advisedly wide discretion has been vested in the Tribunal in the matter of awarding relief according to the circumstances of the case. The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution does not enjoy such power though as a superior court, it is vested with the right of superintendence. The High Court is indisputably entitled to scrutinise the orders of the subordinate tribunals within the well accepted limitations and therefore, it could in an appropriate case quash the award of the Tribunal and thereupon remit the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance with law and directions if any. The High Court is not entitled to exercise the power of the Tribunal and substitute an award in place of the one made by the Tribunal as in the case of an appeal where it lies to it "therefore, the fact now pleaded that the petitioner is in financially stringent circumstances and therefore unable to meet the expenses of paying beck wages is no ground for this Court to exercise that discretion which is vested only in the labour Court or the tribunal as the case may be. ( 5 ) UNFORTUNATELY, no material was placed before the labour Court by the petitioner-Gramodyog Sangh in regard to its financial stringency, in anticipation of an adverse order. It is also ruled that discretion exercised by the labour couit under Section 11a of the Industrial disputes Act is controlled by the proviso to that Section and the discretion must be relatable to the material on record. If there is no material on record, then the labour court would not be in a position to reduce the back-wages either by way of penalty or for any other sufficient reason, in this view of the matter, hardship though there may be, petitioner is bound to pay the full back wages ordered. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the view this Court has taken, backwages, balance of which, if any, may be directed to be paid in six equal instalments having regard to the financial stringency of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent-Caveator-workman has no objection for such a direction. That consent is recorded and the petitioner is permitted to pay the back-wages in six equal instalments, less the amount already paid. Counsel for the respondent-Caveator-workman has no objection for such a direction. That consent is recorded and the petitioner is permitted to pay the back-wages in six equal instalments, less the amount already paid. The first instalment will fall due on first June, 1987, and thereafter, the remaining instalments will be paid with an interval of 60 days between each payment. Order Accordingly. --- *** --- .