JUDGMENT - H.H. KANTHARIA. J.:---The petitioner-workman was employed as a watchman from 1-4-1965 at the petrol pump of the first respondent-Sangh at Udyamnagar and was on duty from 11.00 p.m. on 29-6-1978 till 7.00 a.m. on 30-6-1978. It was alleged against him that during his duty hours one barrel containing gear oil worth Rs. 1,804/- was stolen from the said petrol pump on account of his negligence. He was accordingly charge-sheeted and a domestic enquiry was held. Relying upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer he was discharged with effect from 31-12-1978. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a complaint of unfair labour practice covered by Item 1 of the Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTU PULP Act') in the Labour Court at Kolhapur against the first respondent-Sangh. On considering the evidence adduced before him, the teamed Labour Judge (second respondent) came to the conclusion that the discharge of the petitioner from employment amounted to retrenchment which was done in undue haste violating the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus amounted to an unfair labour practice. He accordingly by his judgment and order dated November 20,1981 so declared that instead of granting the usual relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of services granted the petitioner retrenchment compensation and notice pay in sum of Rs 3,485/- and in sum of Rs. 410/- respectively. The petitioner was dissatisfied by the judgment and order of the Labour Court 'and, therefore, filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 5 of 1982 in the Industrial Court at Pune. ' The Industrial Court (third respondent) by its Judgment and order dated March 10,1983 came to the conclusion that the termination of the services of the petitioner did not amount to retrenchment and, therefore, set aside the order of the Labour Court to the extent of holding that the first respondent-Sangh had indulged in unfair labour practice and granting compensation and notice pay to the petitioner and cost of Rs. 25/- The Industrial Court, however, confirmed the order of the Labour Court to the extent of the Labour Court rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and back wages. 2. 25/- The Industrial Court, however, confirmed the order of the Labour Court to the extent of the Labour Court rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and back wages. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner invoked the supervisory writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition. 3. Now, admittedly the Labour Court had held that by retrenching the petitioner without following the provisions of section 25-For the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 and terminating the services of the petitioner by discharge in undue haste, the first respondent-Sangh had indulged in unfair labour practice covered by Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act When that was so, the Labour Court should have followed the usual well settled principle of law that the petitioner should have been reinstated with full back wages and continuity of services it is surprising to note that instead of following this usual principle of law, the learned labour Judge most unusually granted the petitioner retrenchment compensation and notice pay with effect from the date of the Judgment. It is not understood as to why and under what exceptional circumstances the learned Labour Judge refused to follow the well settled principle of law that once it is held that the termination of the services of a workman is illegal he is entitled to reinstatement and full back wages. The Judgment and order of the learned Labour Judge, therefore, were totally erroneuous and against the well settled principles of law. The petitioner was, therefore, rightly aggrieved by such a Judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Judge and, therefore, correctly approached the Industrial Court at Pune with a revision application The learned Member of the Industrial Court (third respondent) surprisingly enough instead of looking into the grievance made by the petitioner- workman, non-suited him totally in his own revision application. If the learned Member of the Industrial Court was of the view that there were no merits in the revision application of the petitioner-workman, it would have at the most dismissed the revision application. But what is shocking and surprising is that the learned Member of the Industrial Court considered the so-called cross-objections of the first respondent-Sangh which is not permissible under the provisions of MRTU PULP Act and totally non-suited the petitioner-workman, thus amounting to absolutely miscarriage of Justice. But what is shocking and surprising is that the learned Member of the Industrial Court considered the so-called cross-objections of the first respondent-Sangh which is not permissible under the provisions of MRTU PULP Act and totally non-suited the petitioner-workman, thus amounting to absolutely miscarriage of Justice. The Industrial Court was duty bound to follow the well settled principles of Law that once the termination of a workman from services was held illegal, he is normally entitled to reinstatement and full back wages and should have accordingly revised the order made by the Labour Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction vested in the Industrial Court under the provisions of MRTU PULP Act In passing the impugned order, non-suiting the petitioner-workman, the Industrial Court failed to exercise such Jurisdiction vested in it and did something which was beyond its Jurisdiction. The impugned order and Judgment passed by the Industrial Court, therefore, are pregnant with errors apparent on the face of the record. In fact, it would not be too much to say that the order and Judgment of the industrial Court are totally perverse and have got to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner-workman be given appropriate relief. 4. In this view of the matter, the writ petition succeeds and the same allowed. The impugned Judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Pune on March 10, 1983 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 5 of 1982 are quashed and set aside The finding of the Labour Court that the first respondent-Sangh had indulged in unfair labour practice covered by Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act is confirmed. The first respondent-Sangh is here by ordered to cease and desist from indulging in such unfair labour practice. The net result would be that the petitioner should be ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. I am, however told at the Bar that the petitioner has retired on reaching the age of superannuation at the and of July, 1991. The question of granting him relief of reinstatement, therefore, does not arise. The net result would be that the petitioner should be ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. I am, however told at the Bar that the petitioner has retired on reaching the age of superannuation at the and of July, 1991. The question of granting him relief of reinstatement, therefore, does not arise. The first respondent-Sangh therefore, is directed to work out the arrears of full back wages of the petitioner-workman from the day of his illegal discharge from services till 31st July, 1991 and pay the amount of arrears, including terminal benefits, to the petitioner-workman on or before 30th September, 1991 failing which the first respondent-Sangh shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum on such accumulated sums of arrears due and payable to the petitioner-workman effective from October 1-1991. 5. Rule is made absolute in the terms aforesaid with cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the first respondent-Sangh to the petitioner-workman. Rule made absolute. -----