JUDGMENT : S.D. Pandit, J. Usman Miya Alimiya Saiyed has filed the present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was working as a driver under the Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Bulsar. The petitioner had remained absent unauthorisedly for nine days and therefore, a departmental inquiry was held against him and an order of dismissal was passed and the matter was reported to under section 32 of Industrial Disputes Act to the conciliation officer. But the conciliation officer was pleased to refuse to give consent for the said dismissal. The order of conciliation officer was also challenged by the present respondent by preferring writ petition before this court but the said writ petition was dismissed and thus the order of the conciliation officer of refusal to give consent under section 33(2)(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act has become final. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition for his reinstatement and consequential benefits. 4. The petitioner was directed by a notice dated 24.4.86 to join his duties. He was directed to join his duties not to the original depot where he was working but was directed to work at Ahwa. But the petitioner filed CA No.809/86 in this court to cancel the said posting and to reinstate him at Vapi and this court was pleased to allow the said CA No. 809/86 and the petitioner accordingly joined his duties at Vapi. 5. The petitioner had in the meantime retired on attaining superannuation but the petitioner is not given wages or salary for the period running between the order of dismissal and till he joined the respondent. When the respondent has failed to obtain the consent of the conciliation officer, no order of dismissal was passed against the present petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement and accordingly he was reinstated in service. The petitioner is entitled to get back wages for the period from the date of dismissal till his reinstatement. But in the instant case, the petitioner was directed to join his duty on 24.4.86. He was not directed to join duties at Vapi but that does not mean that he was denied his job by the respondent. The petitioner wanted a particular place of posting at Vapi. But in the instant case, the petitioner was directed to join his duty on 24.4.86. He was not directed to join duties at Vapi but that does not mean that he was denied his job by the respondent. The petitioner wanted a particular place of posting at Vapi. Though this court was pleased to give him the same it could not be said that he was justified in not working with the respondent. Therefore, the back wages to which the petitioner would be entitled would be from the date of dismissal on 5.7.84 till the date of reinstatement i.e. from the first order of posting on 24.4.86. The period running between these two posting will have to be counted for the purpose of gratuity and other consequential benefits. Thus he is entitled to get the said benefits if they are not actually paid to him at the time of his superannuation. But out of this period running between 5.7.84 to 24.4.86. he was paid wages for one month except HRA. Therefore, that amount which was paid to him at the time of seeking the consent of the conciliation officer will have to be deducted from the amount which is payable to the petitioner. 6. Thus the petitioner is entitled to get all the back wages for the period from 5.7.84 to 24.4.86 except the amount which was paid to him at the time of obtaining consent of the conciliation officer u/s 33 of I.D.Act. The petitioner is also entitled to get the benefit of the said period running between 5.7.84 and 24.4.86 for the purpose of, pension, gratuity, bonus and other consequential benefits. Thus, this petition stands disposed of as above with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In view of the aforesaid order passed in the main petition C.A.No. 1228/96 stands disposed of. Rule made absolute.