JUDGMENT R.S. Dhavan, J. - The ultimate solution in the present writ petition, being issues between the employer and an employee, arising out of an industrial adjudication, has arrived after the argument had closed upon grace of counsel and has, thus, ended in substantial justice between the parties. 2. The employer is Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Ramala District Meerut. The aforesaid corporate body, a society, carries on the manufacture of crystal sugar through the vacuum pan process. The employee is respondent No.3, Shiv Narain Singh. The latter was employed temporarily by an appointment letter of 17 February, 1980. The terms of the appointment can be seen in the text of the appointment letter noticed by the Labour Court, Meerut, while deciding two preliminary issues, appended as annexure 6' to the writ petition. 3. The genesis of the dispute arose thus: respondent No.3 after having received his appointment as a temporary clerk chose to absent himself. The cause of absenteeism is not relevant in the face of the ultimate solution. That there was absenteeism during the period indicated by the employer, is a matter of record and not in issue. The respondent No.3 was appointed on 17 February, 1980 and from this date till 30 June, 1980 he was absent on 102 days; be tween 18 April, 1981 to 24 June, 1981, 53 days; in August, 1981 for 12 days; in September, 1981 for 16 days, in October 1981 for 91/2 days and between 12 October, 1981 to 8 May, 1982 for 187 days. The last date, that is, 8 May, 1982 is the date when his services were terminated, the cause being absenteeism. 4. Before the Labour Court when the Adjudication Case No. 87 of 1983, between the par ties, was under consideration, the debate between the parties was whether the employer was guilty of illegal retrenchment. Though, it was on record that the workman was not such an employee who had the capacity of sustained effort to work. The real reasons for his absence were never found. But, absenteeism from work is accepted and not in issue and has been accepted at the Bar here also. 5. Now comes the aspect of technicality of law. Though, it was on record that the workman was not such an employee who had the capacity of sustained effort to work. The real reasons for his absence were never found. But, absenteeism from work is accepted and not in issue and has been accepted at the Bar here also. 5. Now comes the aspect of technicality of law. Though, the Labour Court has not returned a specific finding, but the record as this Court is able to discern reveals that between the period 17 February, 1980 to 17 February, 198 1, even if the employer's case of absenteeism for 102 days is taken into account then during the period of twelve months, aforesaid, this workman comes within the expression of 'continuous service' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Section 6-N of the Act, aforesaid. This implies that without having a cause for absenteeism for 102 days in twelve months of his employment yet for the balance period of 240 days this workman has discharged continuous service. With this logic, even if the services of the employee were to be terminated it had to be strictly within the mechanics of Section 6-N of the Act, aforesaid. 6. But, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the continued absence of the employee even after having discharged continuous service reckoned from the period of his appointment does not put the equity in favour of the workman. Notwithstanding that chronic absenteeism is accepted, yet the workman would utilise the award for reinstatement. Absenteeism is negation of work. The choice for the workman is to take recourse to and receive his compensation strictly in accordance with Section 6-N and in case it is an order of reinstatement he relies on then the employer, by an affidavit, raises an issue that during the period between termination and until the order of reinstatement by the Labour Court, he has been gainfully self employed. The assertion of the employer is upon the facts given on affidavit placing material to the effect that the workman was in the business of fabricating materials for a sugar factory. 7. Thus, two factors are before the Court while considering the aspect in reference to the implementation of the award. The first factor is absenteeism from work. The cause of it has not been effectively investigated by the Labour Court. 7. Thus, two factors are before the Court while considering the aspect in reference to the implementation of the award. The first factor is absenteeism from work. The cause of it has not been effectively investigated by the Labour Court. The second factor is that atleast the period of unemployment has not exactly been ungainful for the workman. Thus, with a back ground of absenteeism while in employment, an aspect which is not conducive to production the award in reference to relief needs to be varied and made commensurate with the workman's credibility to work. The Court indicated to the learned counsel for the workman that as a measure of equity it would not be appropriate that the workman should utilise the order of reinstatement with full back wages when atleast this much of the record is clear that absenteeism is accepted. No issue has been raised before this court that the contention of the employer on the period of absenteeism is false. The defence on behalf of the workman as presented before this Court was that notwithstanding that he was absent and whatever be the cause, there had to be strict compliance of Section 6-N of the Act. This section deals with conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman. The expression "continued service" must not be so misunderstood that the High Court cannot look into a chronic case of absenteeism in the facts and circumstances of a case, and not be in a position to mould the consequential relief of back wages while certifying an award of reinstatement. Thus, in the present case the workman was absent from work generally but has faulted the employer on a technicality that the mechanics of retrenchment under the law has not been followed in the letter and spirit. 8. In pursuance of a writ of certiorari while examining the correctness of the award or the compatibility of the reliefs granted on the case of the parties, this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction is not precluded from varying and tempering the reliefs to strike a balance with equity. What a Labour Court or a Tribunal can do in moulding reliefs while judging an employer and employee under Section 6(2-A) of the Act, this Court can likewise, also, do the same. 9. What a Labour Court or a Tribunal can do in moulding reliefs while judging an employer and employee under Section 6(2-A) of the Act, this Court can likewise, also, do the same. 9. The only relief which this Court found appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is that the workman may have his reinstatement, but without back wages. This proposition was put to the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the workman accepted the proposition of the Court. The proposition that the workman would be reinstated was put to the learned counsel for the employer and the latter responded by submitting before this Court that it would be an appropriate order. It may be set on record that learned counsel for the workman has made his submissions upon instructions as the workman was in Court and available to give instructions to counsel. 10. Thus, in the circumstances of the present case, this Court feels that there will be substantial justice between the parties that the employer reinstates the workman in the same appointment which was given to him when he had been initially appointed on 17.2.1980. The reinstatement will be reckoned from today. The award dated 22 May, 1985 arising out of Adjudication Case No. 87 of 1983 of the Labour Court, Meerut, in the matter of grant of reliefs has been modified. 11. The writ petition, is decided in terms of the modifications in the reliefs made by this Court. The award of the Labour Court aforesaid, shall stand modified accordingly, which terms even otherwise are accepted be tween the parties. 12. In the face of divided success, parties shall bear their own costs.