Mr. C. M. Nayar, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition impugnes the Award dated 24/02/1976, passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court,delhi. ( 2 ) BY Notification No. F. 24 (278)/72-Lab. /17751 dated 23/06/1972, the Lt. Governor of Delhi REFERRED TO under Sections 10 (l) (c) and 12 (5) of the Industrialdisputes Act, 1947, an industrial dispute existing between the management of thepetitioner and its workmen to the Court for adjudication. The terms of referencecan be reproduced as follows: "whether the following workmen are entitled to reinstatement with full backwages, and continuity of service; and if so, to what relief are they entitled andwhat directions are necessary in this respect?"1. Shri Chandip Ram 2. Shri Ram Kumar3. Shri Khairati Ram 4. Shri Murat Ram5. Shri Shankar Ram 6. Shri Sudheshi Ram7. Shri Sobhit Ram 8. Shri Ram9. Shri Ram Narain" ( 3 ) ONE of the workmen Shri Sobhit Ram, who figures at serial No. 7 above, diedon 3/01/1984, as stated in the application moved before this Court (C. M. No. 279/86 ). The legal representatives were brought on record by order dated 6/10/1987. The above said workmen contended in the statement of claim that they werein the employment of the petitioner management and that the petitioner victimizedone of them, namely. Ram Nath and another workman Dudh Nath of its sisterconcern M/s Shukal Soap Mills. Dudh Nath had gone on leave for 20 days w. e. f. 5/07/1971. He, however, returned earlier on 22/07/1971, but he was not allowedto resume his duties. This treatment given to Dudh Nath created apprehension inthe minds of other workmen regarding their future. Accordingly, it is averred, theyprotested to the management but to no effect. The intervention of the Labour Courtalso did not bear any fruit. On 28/07/1971, the workmen of the two concerns camewith joint notice to take back Dudh Nath and stated that if their demand was notconsidered they would go on strike. This notice was followed by a strike noticegiven by the Union on 9/08/1971. The management, however, did not concedeto the demand and the strike commenced from the date as specified on August II,1971. It is further stated that during the period of strike, the management charge-sheeted the concerned workmen for the offence of going on strike. The chargeswere replied to and the petitioner management held an enquiry through theirlawyer representative Shri H. S. Saxena. It is further stated that during the period of strike, the management charge-sheeted the concerned workmen for the offence of going on strike. The chargeswere replied to and the petitioner management held an enquiry through theirlawyer representative Shri H. S. Saxena. ( 4 ) THE workmen protested against the appointment of Shri H. S. Saxena as anenquiry Officer as it was stated that he was not an impartial person. It is alsoreiterated by the workmen that no enquiry was held but a notice dated 20/09/1971 was served on them to the effect that they had been dismissed from serviceon the basis of the findings of alleged enquiry. ( 5 ) THE petitioner management in the written statement raised various objections and it was contended that the reference was illegal and unjustified. Theworkers resorted to strike w. e. f. August 11, 1971 without any reasonable cause andnotice. They were duly charge-sheeted and an enquiry was ordered to be held byshri Saxena, who was competent to hold the enquiry. The concerned workmen didnot take part in the said proceedings despite repeated notices and the enquiryproceeded against the workmen ex-parte. On the basis of the findings of theenquiry, the dismissal orders, which were passed as a consequence were perfectlylegal and valid. ( 6 ) THE following issues were framed: 1. Whether the statement of claim is not rightly signed by a competentperson? Effect?2. Whether the reference about Ram Nath is incompetent and illegal?effect?3. Whether the reference is illegal and unjustified as alleged? Effect?4. Whether the order of dismissal of the workmen is illegal, invalid andmalafide?5. As in the reference? ( 7 ) ISSUE No. 1 was decided against the management and on issue No. 2 it washeld that Ram Nath was not a workman of the petitioner management within themeaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act in relation to the management and reference in respect of Ram Nath was held incompetent and illegal. Thequestion as raised in issue No. 4 as to whether the order of dismissal of theworkman was illegal, invalid and malafide, the Labour Court REFERRED TO to theevidence of the parties as well as adjudicated upon the respective contentionsraised before the Court. Thequestion as raised in issue No. 4 as to whether the order of dismissal of theworkman was illegal, invalid and malafide, the Labour Court REFERRED TO to theevidence of the parties as well as adjudicated upon the respective contentionsraised before the Court. It was held that the treatment meted out to Dudh Nathjustifiably gave an apprehension in the minds of the concerned workmen abouttheir future fate and they resorted to a strike forcing the management to reinstatedudh Nath. The strike by the concerned workmen for reinstatement of Dudh Nath,therefore, was not such an unconcerned affair as the management tried to depictand, accordingly, it was held that the participation of the workmen in the strikecould not be visited by the termination of their services which was held to be illegaland unjustified and was an act of victimisation. The strike was resorted to aftergiving notice to the management and there was nothing in the record to indicatethat it was illegal. This issue was decided accordingly. ( 8 ) THE Labour Court, however, did not consider reinstatement of the workmen in the interest of industrial peace and only awarded six months pay to eachworkman except Ram Nath in lieu of reinstatement. They were also held entitledto 40 per cent of their wages from the period of dismissal to the date of the award. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner managementfiled the present writ petition in the year 1976 when rule was issued and by aninterim order dated 10/05/1978, the computed amount which was said to be Rs. 27,877. 96 was directed to be deposited by the petitioner in this Court. Out of thesaid amount, so deposited, the workmen were held entitled to 50 per cent withoutfurnishing any security and the balance of 50 per cent was permitted to bewithdrawn by them subject to furnishing adequate security for restitution to thesatisfaction of the Registrar of this Court. The learned Counsel for the respondentsstates that the workmen could only withdraw a sum of 50 per cent and as they couldnot furnish any security, the balance of 50 per cent is lying in deposit with the Court. The learned Counsel for the respondentsstates that the workmen could only withdraw a sum of 50 per cent and as they couldnot furnish any security, the balance of 50 per cent is lying in deposit with the Court. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that therequisite notice was given to the workmen and they failed to participate in theproceedings before the Enquiry Officer and they are themselves to be blamed foran ex-parte enquiry, which proceeded against them. They did not avail of theopportunity of presenting themselves and defending their action at the enquiry. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in Lakshmidevi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Samp and Others, AIR 1957 SC 82 to reiterate thissubmission. Mr. Bhandari has then argued that the present trend in law is todedare the strike as unjustified tool in the hands of the workmen and they are notentitled to wages for the strike period even if the strike is only legal but not justifiedor if the strike is illegal though justified. He has placed reliance on the judgment ofthe Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court as reported in Syndicate Bank andanother v. Shri K. Umesh Nayak, JT 1994 (5) SC 647. There is no doubt about theproposition, as raised by the learned Counsel and I am in respectful agreement withthe views expressed by the Supreme Court. The present case, however, depictsdifferent facts. The findings have been given by the Labour Court to the effect thatstrike was resorted to after giving notice to the management and there was nothingon record to lead to the inference that the strike was illegal. The participation of theworkmen in the strike could not, therefore, be visiting the workmen by terminationof their services. The Labour Court has, therefore not held that the strike was notillegal and unjustified. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank andanother v. Shri K. Umesh Nayak (supra) does not debar the claim of wages in thissituation. Paragraph 27 of the judgment may be reproduced as follows: "we, therefore, hold endorsing the view taken in T. S. Kelawala that theworkers are not entitled to wages for the strike period even if the strike islegal. To be entitled to the wages for the strike-period, the strike has to be bothlegal and justified. Paragraph 27 of the judgment may be reproduced as follows: "we, therefore, hold endorsing the view taken in T. S. Kelawala that theworkers are not entitled to wages for the strike period even if the strike islegal. To be entitled to the wages for the strike-period, the strike has to be bothlegal and justified. Whether the strike is legal or justified are questions of factto be decided on the evidence on record. Under the Act, the question has tobe decided by the industrial adjudicator, it being an industrial dispute withinthe meaning of the Act. "the Labour Court has further awarded only relief to the extent of six months pay to each workman and held them entitled to 40 per cent of their wages from the period of the dismissal to the date of the award. ( 11 ) THE question of upsetting the findings of the Labour Court will have to beconsidered with regard to the powers of this Court to interfere at this stage inexercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofindia. The Labour Court has awarded relief to the extent as indicated above in lieuof re-instatement. There is no miscarriage of justice and no ground is made out for interference in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed with costs.