R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid writ petitions are that in the year 1980 workmen of M/s. Elgin Mills Co. Ltd. ; (Mill No. 2) at Kanpur, hereinafter referred to as mill, raised a demand for the payment of bonus for the year 1979. They claimed that they should be paid 20% bonus for pressing this demand, workers also started agitation and went on strike which continued form 16th July, 1980 to 2nd September, 1980 on which date management of the Mill declared lock out. The management took action against 81 workmen, charge-sheeted them and ul timately passed orders of dismissal dated 11th September, 1980 against them. It is stated that the then Labour Minister of State of Uttar Pradesh intervened in the matter. A meeting of the Labour union leaders and management took place on 4th October, 1980 and the dispute was ultimate ly referred to Shri S. P. Singh, the then Addi tion Labour Commissioner for deciding the dispute. This was voluntary arbitration for which parties had agreed. In pursuance of the award given by the Arbitrator on 6th October, 1980 the lock out was lifted and action against 61 workers out of 81 was taken back. These workers were such who had not taken leading part and there were no serious charges against them. The dis missal orders were withdrawn. However in respect of 20 workers it was agreed that a domestic enquiry may be initiated against them in accordance with law and they shall be placed under suspension pending en quiry. The award dated 6th October, 1980 is Annexure-2 to Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15035 of 1986. Against 20 workmen proceedings started by service of charge sheet. However out of 20, 5 workers tendered apology and on basis of the apol ogy the action was withdrawn against them. Two workers resigned from service, one worker did not contest the proceedings and one worker expired during this period. The management after completing the domestic enquiry passed orders of dismissal against 11 employees. These employees raised in dustrial dispute against their dismissals which were referred by the State Govern ment under Section 4-K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, here-in-after referred to as act, to the Labour Court. The management after completing the domestic enquiry passed orders of dismissal against 11 employees. These employees raised in dustrial dispute against their dismissals which were referred by the State Govern ment under Section 4-K of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, here-in-after referred to as act, to the Labour Court. Out of 11 workers, it appears, references were separately made in respect of 8 workers on which basis the cases were registered before the Labour Court as Adjudication Case Nos. 51 of 1984 to 58 of 1984. All these 8 cases were consolidated and were decided by a common award by the Labour Court. By the award dated 30th April, 1986, Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and reinstated the workmen with continuity in service and also awarded 33% of the back wages at the rate they were being paid at the time of dismissal. Aggrieved by this award the management of the Mill has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15035 of 1986. 8 workmen feeling aggrieved by the award under which they have been given only 33% of the back wages, have filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17562 of 1986. 2. With regard to remaining three workmen, the award was given by the Labour Court on 17th July, 1986. The award was similar i. e. reinstatement of the workmen with continuity in service and with 33% of the back wages at the rate they were being paid at the time of dismissal. The management of the Mill has filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18615 of 1986 and three workmen have filed Civil Misc. Writ Peti tion No. 17559 of 1986 challenging the part of the award by which they have been given 33% of the back wages. Thus questions of facts and law involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions are common and all the four writ petitions can be decided finally by a common judgment against which learned Counsel for the parties have no objection. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15035 of 1986 shall be the leading case. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15035 of 1986 shall be the leading case. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Before dealing with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to mention that the domestic enquiry conducted by the manage ment of the Mill against the workmen was found to be unfair and against the principles of natural justice by the Labour Court on 20th August, 1985 and the management was allowed to adduce evidence to prove the misconduct of the workmen on which basis they wanted them to be dismissed from ser vice. Thereafter the management adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Labour Court examined the oral and documentary evidence and gave the im pugned awards. 4. Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Mill submitted that the petitioner adduced oral evidence and also filed large number of documents to prove the misconduct of the workmen. As against it the workmen adduced no evidence to controvert evidence adduced by petitioner. They did not even cross-ex amined the witnesses. The strike was declared illegal and on account of this illegal strike there was loss of production and the misconduct of the workmen was established by evidence on record. However the Labour Court committed a serious error of law in holding that the misconduct of the workmen has not been established. It was also submitted that under the Bonus Act workmen had remedy and their demand for payment of bonus at the rate 20% was whol ly unjustified. Under the Act they were en titled for maximum bonus 8. 33%. The workmen instead of firstly approaching the authority under the Bonus Act directly adopted agitational attitude causing serious loss in production and financial loss to the management. The work and produc tion in the Mill was effected for about 80 days which is inclusive of the lock out period. The Labour leaders had no courage to approach any of the Court under the Bonus Act and further they could not lead any evidence to justify their conduct. Learned Counsel has also submitted about the present position of the Mill which has already been declared as sick industry and has submitted that this aspect of the matter should also be taken into account. 5. Learned Counsel has also submitted about the present position of the Mill which has already been declared as sick industry and has submitted that this aspect of the matter should also be taken into account. 5. Shri K. P. Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the workmen in all the writ petitions, on the other hand, submitted that there was no wrong on the part of the n creating pressure on the employer to pay bonus. The arbitration proceeding were initiated on an informal reference with the agreement of the parties and it was not an arbitration under Section 5 (b) of the Act. The pressure on the employer may be created by strike and meeting. However it cannot be termed as misconduct by itself. There is no evidence that any Kind of violence took place in the Mill premises. The charges against 61 workers who were reinstated and against 20 workmen against whom domestic enquiries were initiated, were identical and the dis missal of some of the workmen was per se illegal and arbitrary and amounted to unfair labour practice. Responsibility, with regard to misconduct should have been established separately in respect of each workman and the management could not resort to dis missal like in the present case. So far as the evidence adduced by the petitioner was con cerned, it has been submitted that there was nothing to be rebutted and no adverse in ference could be drawn against the workmen on this basis. Learned Counsel has submitted that even if the charges were proved, Labour Court could interfere with the quantum of punishment and Labour Court exercised its discretion in special facts and circumstances of the case. Shri K. P. Agarwal, learned Counsel also submitted that the Labour Court was not justified in awarding 33% of the back wages. The workmen were entitled for the entire back wages. Shri Agarwal has also submitted that only fact which has been established by the evidence adduced by the petitioner is that the meeting were held and speeches were made and for this alone punishment of dis missal would have been too harsh and the view taken by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workmen does not call for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. 6. Shri Agarwal learned Counsel for the respondents, in support of his submis sions, has placed reliance on following cases:- (1) India General Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. and another v. Their Workmen, A. I. R. 1960 S. C. 219. (2) The Workmen of Mis. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. The Management and others, AI. R. 1973 S. C. 1227 ; (3) Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. etc. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, reported in AI. R. 1980 S. C. 1896 and (4) Scooter India Limited, Lucknow v. Labour Court, Lucknow and others, AI. R. 1989 S. C. 149. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned award. The Labour Court in this case has appreciated the statements of various witnesses ex amined by the petitioner who were from the watch and ward department. The Labour Court has also perused the register produced in which the entries were made with regard to the happenings in the meet ings of the workmen which took place in side the Mill premises. The finding has also been recorded that no labour union leader from outside came to preside these meet ings. The meetings were mostly held during interval period or before the commence ment of the shift. On perusal of the state ment of the witnesses the finding has been recorded to the effect that these meetings were held by the workmen for consultation with regard of demand of payment of bonus and witnesses have given a positive statement that no body presided these meetings. In my opinion, on the face of such evidence the view formed by the Labour Court can not be said to be unjustified and does not suffer from any error of law. So far as the loss of production and the financial loss to the petitioner is concerned, Labour Court has observed that in the charge-sheet no charge to this effect was raised against the workmen and as the charges to the aforesaid fact were not communicated to the workmen during domestic enquiry, petitioner cannot be allowed to make a new case at this stage. In my opinion, the view taken by the Labour Court to this aspect of the matter also does not suffer from any error of law. In my opinion, the view taken by the Labour Court to this aspect of the matter also does not suffer from any error of law. The charges have been men tioned in the enquiry report, which is An-nexure-24 to the writ petition and out of the 8 charges there is no mention of any kind of loss of production resulting in financial loss to the company. Thus the award does not suffer from any error of law on this count also. The Labour Court has not found, on the material on record and facts and cir cumstances of the case, the punishment of dismissal justified and in my opinion, right ly. From the evidence on record and findings recorded by the Labour Court the role of these 11 employees has not been found to be serious and brave or in any other way substantially different from the role of 61 employees who were reinstated on basis of the award given in informal arbitration proceedings. The present workmen may have been a little more vocal or may have used harsh language in pressing their demand but by that alone the order of dismissal could not be justified. Honble Supreme Court in case of I. G. Navigation and Railway Co. Ltd. (supra) observed as under: "it is not in the interest of the Industry that there should be a wholesale dismissal of all the workmen who merely participated in such a strike. It is certainly not in the interest of the workmen themselves. An Industrial Tribunal therefore, has to consider the question of punishment, keeping in view the overriding consideration of full and efficient working of the Industry as a whole. The punishment of dismissal" or termination of services has, therefore ,to be imposed on such workmen as had not only participated in the illegal strike, but had fermented it and had been guilty of violence or doing acts detrimental to the maintenance of law and order in the locality where work had to be carried on. " 8. If the aforesaid observations of Honble Supreme Court are kept in mind, in my opinion, the order of dismissal has rightly not been passed against the workmen by Labour Court and the award does not suffer from any error of law. " 8. If the aforesaid observations of Honble Supreme Court are kept in mind, in my opinion, the order of dismissal has rightly not been passed against the workmen by Labour Court and the award does not suffer from any error of law. None of the workmen has been found guilty of the misconduct that they committed any violence or did any act detrimental to the maintenance of law and order in the locality where work had to be carried on. 9. In respect of the Second question with regard to the award of 33% of the back wages against which the workmen have ap proached this Court, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel that in this case as the workmen have not been found guilty of misconduct the normal rule of awarding full back wages should have followed after reinstatement and the view taken by the Labour Court is wholly unjustified in awarding back wages only to the extent of 33%. 10. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the workmen. How ever, in my opinion, the Labour Court in the facts and circumstances of the case has passed the correct award. In determining the question of punishment the distinction has to be made between those workmen who had not only joined in such strike but also took part in obstructing the loyal workmen from carrying on their work. From the evidence on record, it has been established that the workmen had made violent speeches, organized the strike on account of which many workmen could not discharge their normal duties. Thus the action of the present workmen could be distinguished from those who had simply participated in the meeting. Even the Arbitrator in infor mal arbitration proceedings found these persons prima-facie guilty of the misconduct which resulted in tense atmosphere in the Mill premises for over two months. Thus the award of the Labour Court is based on suffi cient material and the award cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal in any manner. In fact the impugned awards are well reasoned awards and the findings recorded are based on record. The findings are essentially on question of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. On behalf of the petitioner, a sup plementary affidavit was filed at the time of hearing. In fact the impugned awards are well reasoned awards and the findings recorded are based on record. The findings are essentially on question of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. On behalf of the petitioner, a sup plementary affidavit was filed at the time of hearing. In paragraph No. 3 whereof it has been stated that the petitioner-company has been declared sick unit under Sick In dustrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 19s5 on 3rd November, 1992 and there after Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction by order dated 29th Sep tember, 1994 has recommended for winding up of the petitioner-company. However petitioner has gone in appeal against order of 29 September, 1994 passed by B. I. F. R. and the appeal is pending. It has also been submitted that respondent No. 3. Bhola Nath respondent No. 5 Sajjan Khan and respondent No. 9 Mohd. Bahsir have also attained the age of superannuation on 19th December, 1996, 12th May, 1991 and 31st October, 1996 respectively and in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18615 of 1986 third respondent Shri Ahmad Husain has also retired. However the aforesaid facts brought on record by the supplementary affidavit have no effect so far as the awards challenged in these writ petitions are con cerned. At the most the facts stated above, may have relevance at the time of implementation of the award. Thus this Court is not required to say anything with regard to the aforesaid fact. 12. For the reasons stated above, I do not find merits in any of the writ petitions and they are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. .