JUDGMENT 1. - This Appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 17th July, 1996 passed by a learned single Judge of our Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1566/85, whereby an application being S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 70/96 was disposed of. 2. The appellant petitioner terminated the service of the respondent No. 1 purportedly acting under the provisions of 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (for short referred to hereinafter as the Act of 1958) without holding an enquiry in the context to allegations of misconduct levelled against the workman respondent. It was the stand taken by the employer-writ petitioner appellant that on account of disobedience of the respondent in carrying out the work assigned to him and his using improper language and leaving the place of employment without the permission and his indisciplined conduct there was no necessity of holding a Disciplinary Enquiry against him, and these grounds would indeed serve a reasonable cause for terminating of his service within the meaning of 28A of the Act of 1958. The Authority under the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, directed reinstatement of the respondent workman with full back wages holding inter alia that at least there was an existence of a prima facie case in respect of two of the charges, but in respect of two other charges, no Disciplinary Enquiry was held and that it was a fit case for reinstatement with back wages. The employer writ petitioner challenged the Award as passed by the Authority under the Act of 1958 before the learned single Judge, who has disposed of the writ application on 25.3.1996 in the following terms:- "Heard the learned counsel for the parties. After hearing the learned counsel for some time, both the learned counsel have agreed for the following : 1. That the petitioner employer shall reinstate the respondent workman in service on or before 1st May, 1996, 2. That the petitioner employer shall treat the respondent workman on regular basis and he will be paid the regular salary. 3. The respondent workman shall be reinstated in service with all benefits of service, except back wages, as if his services were never terminated. The respondent workman agrees to resume duty on or before 1.5.1996 and undertakes not to commit same misconduct on which his services were terminated in past. 3. The respondent workman shall be reinstated in service with all benefits of service, except back wages, as if his services were never terminated. The respondent workman agrees to resume duty on or before 1.5.1996 and undertakes not to commit same misconduct on which his services were terminated in past. In view of the above the impugned award dated 25.6.1985 passed by Pradhikari, Shops and Commercial Establishment Act is modified to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with no costs." 3. The writ petitioner appellant filed an application for review being S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 70/96, wherein its learned counsel expressed regret before the learned single Judge and submitted that the order of consent was not properly recorded by the Court on 25.3.1996 and that the writ petitioner appellant did not want an agreed consent order and hence the order disposing of the writ application by consent should be set aside and a fresh order should be passed in accordance with law. The learned single Judge after hearing the submissions of both the sides, modified the earlier order and directed the employer writ petitioner to allow the respondent workman to resume duty on or before 1.8.1996. It was the propriety of this order, which was challenged before us. 4. Instead of being hypertechnical as regards the manner in which the review application was disposed of by the learned single Judge, we perused the review application with proper introspection and were convinced that it was never the case as sought to be made out by the writ petitioner that the learned Advocate went beyond his jurisdiction in recording an order of consent without the expressed authorisation of his client. But, then it was the case as sought to be made out that the writ petitioner did not want a consent order, but wanted an order on merits. It must be taken for granted that the order which was passed on 25.3.1996 was made on the basis of concession so recorded on behalf of both the sides, inasmuch as the respondent workman did forego his claim for back wages and that the writ petitioner employer agreed to reinstate the workman in service within a time bound schedule on 1.5.1996 and the workman was assured to be paid the regular salary and he would be treated as if his services had never been terminated earlier than 1.5.1996. Unfortunately he was not allowed to join the service and on the other hand, a review application was filed as stated earlier. 5. We have gone into the merits of the Award, as passed by the Authority under the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 and we do not find any infirmity in the same so as to warrant any interference at all. It would be a futile exercise of authority to remit the matter back to the learned single Judge for writing out a judgment on merits over again. What could not be so done directly was resorted to be so done indirectly and when on the face of certain allegations being made against the workman concerned, the employer instead of going through a fullfledged Disciplinary Enquiry, resorted to the proceedings, under the provisions of 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, we think it was only just and proper that the Authority under the Act of 1958 directed reinstatement with full back wages. Unfortunately, for the workman concerned, he did forego his claim as regards his back wages and was content with reinstatement only as expressed by his learned Advocate and as recorded in the order dated 25.3.1996. We do not think that either the order dated 25.3.1996 or the order dated 17.7.1996 in any manner calls for any interference at all. The respondent should be taken back in service with immediate effect within a fortnight hereof. The contempt Application filed by the respondent could only be proceeded with before the learned single Judge, if our order is not given effect to. The respondent would be entitled to back wages w.e.f. 1.8.1996 even though he joins duty at a later date, as he may be permitted to do so.The Special Appeal is therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******