JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 9 September 1996, passed by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and directed the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation to pay an amount of Rs.14,465.04 to the petitioner as claimed by him in the claim petition. The learned Single Judge, also, awarded the interest at 12 per cent per annum on this amount. 2. Respondent Bheeka Ram was working as a conductor with the appellant Corporation. He was placed under suspension vide order, dated 6 February 1979, on the charge that 28 passengers out of 64 passengers, travelling in the bus on which the respondent-petitioner was the conductor, were found ticketless when the checking was made on 29 January 1979. A criminal complaint under Section 8 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Prevention of Travelling Passengers without Ticket) Act, 1975, against the respondent on the same charges was, also filed. The departmental enquiry was also conducted against the respondent-petitioner. 3. In the criminal case though the respondent-petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court but he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal field by him. The revision petition filed by the Corporation against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, was dismissed by the High Court. Though he was found guilty in the departmental enquiry and the punishment was imposed but after acquittal of the respondent-petitioner in the criminal case, he was ordered to be reinstated in service but the benefit of back-wages was not accorded to him. He filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 for the grant of back-wages but that application was dismissed. The respondent-petitioner filed the writ petition claiming the back-wages and other consequential benefits. A preliminary objection was raised by the appellant- Corporation that no order could have been passed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the grant of back-wages and the order, by which the back-wages were not granted to the respondent, has not been challenged by him and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. 4. The learned Single Judge, without going into the controversy: whether the petition under Section 33C(2) of the Act, 1947, is maintainable or not, exercised the equitable jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and ordered for payment of the back-wages and granted other consequential benefits. 5. In a case where reinstatement is ordered the natural consequence of that is that the workman, who has been ordered to be reinstated, is entitled for other consequential benefits in the service including the back-wages. The back-wages were denied to the respondent-petitioner without any just cause. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was justified in exercising his equitable jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for awarding the back-wages and other consequential benefits. We see no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. In the result, we do not find an y merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. *******