JUDGMENT : B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J. 1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an Award of the Labour Court, Sangli, dated December 1, 1988, made in Reference (IDA) No. 128 of 1989 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The Petitioner is the Transport Manager of the bus transport undertaking controlled by the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. The First Respondent was working as a Conductor in its service. From July 14, 1980 to June 30, 1984, the First Respondent remained absent from work, though his name was continued in the muster roll of the Petitioner. From July 1, 1984, the Petitioner struck the name of the First Respondent off the roll, by imputing an intention to abandon service to him, on account of his long absence from service. It is the case of the Petitioner that the First Respondent had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 4,480/- belonging to the Petitioner and that, when this was discovered, he remained absent from duty continuously, fearing disciplinary action. It is not disputed that the Petitioner, though it claimed that there was criminal breach of trust on the part of the First Respondent, did not prosecute the First Respondent before the Criminal Court. 3. The First Respondent raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from July 28, 1980, alleging that his services were orally terminated from July 28, 1980. The First Respondent's demand was rejected by an Award dated June 8, 1984 made by the Labour Court. Being aggrieved, the First Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 4199 of 1984 before this Court By an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court (Sawant and Jahagirdar, JJ.) on November 19, 1984, the Award of the Labour Court dated June 8, 1984 was quashed and set aside by consent and remanded to the Labour Court for fresh hearing. After remand, the parties appeared before the Labour Court and led evidence in support of their respective contentions. After considering all the evidence that was led before it, the Labour Court raised the following issues and answered them as under: "(1) Whether the second party (present Respondent No. 1) proves that no charge-sheet was given to him nor any enquiry was made into the misconduct alleged against him? Yes. After considering all the evidence that was led before it, the Labour Court raised the following issues and answered them as under: "(1) Whether the second party (present Respondent No. 1) proves that no charge-sheet was given to him nor any enquiry was made into the misconduct alleged against him? Yes. (2) Whether the second party proves that he was serving as Conductor on permanent basis? Yes. (3) Whether the first party (present Petitioner) proves that the second party has misappropriated a big amount and he remained absent fearing that the first party would start an enquiry against him? No. (4) Whether the first party proves that the second party was given a notice calling upon him to resume his duties as required under the law? No. (5) Whether the First Party has pleaded that it has lost confidence in the second party? No. (6) Whether the second party proves that the First party did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947? Yes. (7) Whether the First party proves that the Second Party of his own accord abandoned the service by remaining absent? No. (8) Whether the second party workman is entitled to reinstatement? Yes. (9) Whether the second party workman is entitled to full back wages and continuity of service? Yes. (10) What order? As per final order." My findings are - The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the First Respondent with full back wages and continuity of service. Hence, this Writ Petition. 4. When this Writ Petition was moved for Admission, the Division Bench of Sawant and Kolse-Patil, JJ. passed the following order: "Rule only with regard to back wages. The petition stands dismissed so far as the relief against the order of reinstatement is concerned. Petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman forthwith. Rule with regard to interim relief against back wages returnable on March 9, 1989." Rule was granted only regarding back wages. It would thus appear that, while dismissing the challenge to the order of reinstatement, the Division Bench of this Court kept open only the issue of payment of back wages to be canvassed in the hearing of this Writ Petition. 5. Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, drew my attention to the findings made by the labour Court in paragraphs 16 and 17 of its judgment. 5. Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, drew my attention to the findings made by the labour Court in paragraphs 16 and 17 of its judgment. From the evidence on record, it appears that the Petitioner was admittedly refused work during the period July 14, 1980 to June 30, 1984. Though Mr. Sawant tried to persuade me to agree with his submission that this was because of a misappropriation on the part of the First Respondent, I am not concerned with it, as that part of the Award directing reinstatement has been upheld by the Division Bench by dismissing the challenge to the order of reinstatement. The Petition would, therefore, have to be heard only on the footing that the order of treating the First Respondent as having abandoned service from July 1, 1984 was illegal and not binding on the First Respondent, in consequence of which, it has been set aside and the First Respondent has been rightly reinstated in service. 6. The only area of controversy left open in the Writ Petition is, (a) Whether the First Respondent's service was terminated on July 28, 1980 or on July 1, 1984? (b) For what period is that First Respondent entitled to back wages? The evidence on record, which has been accepted by the Labour Court, shows that the First Respondent had remained absent from July 28, 1980 till his name was struck off from the muster roll on July 1, 1984. The order of reinstatement, which has been upheld by the Division Bench, would only mean that the action taken by the Petitioner by way of striking off the name of the First Respondent from the roll on July 1, 1984 was illegal and, therefore, the First Respondent was entitled to be reinstated from the date. Neither the order of the Labour Court, nor the previous order of this Court, can be read to mean that, for the period July 28, 1980 to June 30, 1984, when the Petitioner was not admittedly attending work, he should be entitled to back wages. The Labour Court correctly appreciated and accepted the evidence of the First Respondent on this issue and held that I during the said period, the First Respondent was not actually working and he was absent. Consequently, the claim for back wages can only be for the period from July 1, 1984 onwards. Mr. The Labour Court correctly appreciated and accepted the evidence of the First Respondent on this issue and held that I during the said period, the First Respondent was not actually working and he was absent. Consequently, the claim for back wages can only be for the period from July 1, 1984 onwards. Mr. Sawant informs me that the First Respondent has been reinstated in service on March 13, 1989, though he was not paid back wages, in view of the stay granted by this Court. For the period subsequent to July 1, 1984, I see no reason for denying back wages to the First Respondent as there were no exceptional circumstances pleaded to deprive him of back wages. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, the impugned order of the Labour Court on the question of back wages is modified and it is directed that the First Respondent shall be entitled to back wages only from July 1, 1984 till he was reinstated in services pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of this Court made in this Writ Petition. Rule made accordingly absolute with no order as to costs. 8. Certified copy expedited.