JUDGMENT 1. :- Vide an award Annex.3, dated 8.6.1992, the Labour Court, on the reference being made to it for adjudication and to determine the legality and propriety of the termination of services of the petitioner Ugam Raj, had given finding to the effect that the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was illegal and void for being in contravention of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to hereinafter as the Act'). 2. It is not disputed by the parties that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with by paying retrenchment compensation and issuing any notice. 3. The facts leading to the reference involved in the labour dispute are that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 13.11.1986 by the respondent, who was earlier appointed on 27.12.1984 as a Daffer in the Ring Department of the respondent. It is stated that the petitioner was on leave from 16.10.1986 to 10.11.1986. on medical grounds which was duly certified by the E.S.I. Hospital and the respondent was duly informed by letters sent by registered post. It was further stated by the workman that on 1.11.1986 he had submitted the medical certificate by presenting himself before the employer and after recovery from illness and after obtaining fitness certificate he had pre sented himself for duty but he was not allowed to join his duties on the ground that his name has been struck off from the rolls. It is stated that he was not informed of the rejection of any of his leave application and he has always been prepared to work on or after 13.11.1986. It is further stated that he had submitted the original prescriptions and postal receipt of the registered letter on 15.11.1986 as well appended therein the required certificates of health. It is further submitted that the respondent instead of taking him on duty had offered to take him as a fresh candidate on trial to which suggestion the petitioner had not agreed. He remained unemployed right from 13.11.1986. The Labour Court had come to the finding that the workman had remained absent from 16.10 1986 till 13.11.1986. It has been found, as a matter of fact, that the workman had also submitted the medical and health certificates as well as the leave application sent by registered post, the postal receipt of which was Ex.P.1. The Labour Court had come to the finding that the workman had remained absent from 16.10 1986 till 13.11.1986. It has been found, as a matter of fact, that the workman had also submitted the medical and health certificates as well as the leave application sent by registered post, the postal receipt of which was Ex.P.1. The medical prescriptions have also been exhibited as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. The fitness certificate has been exhibited as Ex.P.4 before the Labour Court. It is found by the Labour Court that the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner contained the name of the person named as 'Umrao' whereas the name of the petitioner-workman is 'Ugam Raj'. Therefore, no proper medical certificate had been produced by the petitioner before the Labour Court and, thus, it was found, as a matter of fact, that the respondent had violated the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The Labour Court had reinstated the petitioner with continuity of service and had found that the workman was in the habit of remaining on leave but because of violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, the workman was entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity in service. However, the Labour Court deprived the workman of the back-wages. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for claiming the additional relief of back-wages on the ground that the order of termination being void ab initio. the petitioner was entitled to the full back-wages right from the date of termination till reinstatement. 5. The respondent has filed the written statement. The facts as stated in the writ petition are not denied but it is stated that at the initial stage after the termination of the services of the petitioner, the respondent-employer was prepared to take him back on job as a fresh appointee on trial basis to which. the petitioner had not agreed as he wanted to be reinstated with continuity of service, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of back-wages. 6. The petitioner in support of his contention relies on a single Bench judgment of this Court in Bhartiya Mining Vibhag Karmchari Sangh v. State of Rajasthan 1992 WLR (S) Raj. the petitioner had not agreed as he wanted to be reinstated with continuity of service, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of back-wages. 6. The petitioner in support of his contention relies on a single Bench judgment of this Court in Bhartiya Mining Vibhag Karmchari Sangh v. State of Rajasthan 1992 WLR (S) Raj. 519, wherein it was held that if the order of termination is not valid and the workman was found guilty of wilful absence from duty the gainful employment during the period when termination order remained in force is also a relevant factor. which has to be taken into consideration before award of full backwages and in the absence of any evidence for or against the gainful employment of the petitioner, during the period when his termination order was in force. in the ordinary course, it would have been appropriate to direct the Labour Court to examine the issue and pass appropriate orders in this regard. A relief of 50% of the back wages was awarded by the High Court from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement by modifying the award 7. It has been held by the Supreme Court in M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd.. AIR 1979 SC 75 (1978 Lab.IC 1667) , that ordinarily, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated either by dismissal, discharge or retrenchment will be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule. When the termination of services was found to be neither proper nor justified. 8. Counsel for the respondent relies on Rolston John v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. AIR 1994 SC 131 : (1994 Lab. IC 973) , wherein in a case where the workman had overstayed his leave it was held that the termination amounted to retrenchment and failure to follow the procedure under section 25F vitiated the order of termination. However, the Apex Court in the facts of that case has awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the workman instead of reinstatement This authority does not help the respondent. 9. However, the Apex Court in the facts of that case has awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the workman instead of reinstatement This authority does not help the respondent. 9. After going through the facts of the case and hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that the petitioner did apply for medical leave and no opportunity was given to him to substantiate his case even though the medical leave was supported by the E.S.I. Hospital certificate. The order of termination has been held to be invalid and in normal circumstances the petitioner is entitled to continuity in service and full back wages. In the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice would be met if full back wages are awarded to the petitioner from the date when the reference was made i.e. 31.3.1990 till the date of the award dated 8.6.1992 and the petitioner. of course, shall also be entitled wages after passing of the award till he is reinstated. The award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to full back-wages from 31 3.1990 i.e. from the date of reference to the date of the award and shall also be entitled to the wages as he would have been entitled to on his reinstatement after the award along with continuity of service as already ordered by the Labour Court. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part with the aforesaid observations. No cost.Petition partly allowed. *******