ORDER 1. The appellant has brought in challengeremand order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in proceedings arising out of his earlier removal from service of the respondent Corporation. The appellant was at the relevant time working asconductor onbus of the respondent Corporation. He was alleged to have committed misconduct for which he was chargesheeted on 31-12-1984 by being placed under suspension. After the departmental enquiry he was removed from service by an order dated 9-71985. He raised an industrial dispute which came to be adjudicated upon by the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was vitiated. It, therefore, granted liberty to the respondent to lead evidence to justify its action against the appellant. After the evidence was led, the Labour Court found that out of the three charges levelled against him Charge 3 was not established, but on his own admission the other two charges were established. The Labour Court in the light of the finding reached by it held, by award dated 20-8-1992, that the appellant may be reinstated with continuity of service but with 50% back wages only. The said award resulted in two cross writ petitions before the High Court. The respondent Corporation filed Writ Petition No. 7686 of 1993 challenging the order of reinstatement. The appellant in his turn in quest of 100% back wages filed Writ Petition No. 1465 of 1995. 2.learned Single Judge of the High Court heard both the writ petitions together and came to the conclusion that there was no case for interfering with the reinstatement as ordered by the Labour Court. Consequently, the respondent Corporation’s writ petition being Writ Petition No. 7686 of 1993 was dismissed. So far as the writ petition filed by the appellant was concerned, it was allowed and 100% back wages were ordered to be granted to him. 3. The respondent Corporation being aggrieved by the decision of 100% back wages as ordered by the learned Single Judge filed Writ Appeal No. 883 of 1995. So far as the writ petition filed by the appellant was concerned, it was allowed and 100% back wages were ordered to be granted to him. 3. The respondent Corporation being aggrieved by the decision of 100% back wages as ordered by the learned Single Judge filed Writ Appeal No. 883 of 1995. The said appeal was allowed by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and the proceedings were remanded to the Labour Court for fresh hearing and for deciding whether any back wages could be granted to the appellant and whether he was gainfully employed when the order of removal was operating against him and also for deciding whether reinstatement could have been granted. 4. Being aggrieved by the said direction of the Division Bench, the appellant by grant of special leave has filed this appeal. 5. It becomes at once clear that so far as the reinstatement order of theLabour Court was concerned, it was confirmed by the learned Single Judge in, Writ Petition No. 7686 of 1993 and that order was not carried in further appeal by the respondent Corporation. Consequently, reinstatement with, continuity of service has become final. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation also fairly stated that the appellant is already reinstated with continuity of service and his grievance now survives regarding back wages only. It is, therefore, obvious that the direction of the Division Bench that after remand question of reinstatement may be considered by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained. However, it was brought to our notice that the past record of the appellant was very much unsatisfactory, as seen from pp. 15 and 16 of the paper-book. Number of punishments were imposed on him on five earlier occasions spread over from 1981 to 1983 and the last incident which resulted in his removal was of 1984. Considering this past record of the appellant, in our view, no back wages ought to have been granted to him. It is true that the appellant has challenged the remand order whereby the Labour Court is directed to consider whether he was gainfully employed in the meantime or not. It may be mentioned at this stage that the impugned order states that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in both the writ petitions are set aside. It is true that the appellant has challenged the remand order whereby the Labour Court is directed to consider whether he was gainfully employed in the meantime or not. It may be mentioned at this stage that the impugned order states that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in both the writ petitions are set aside. However, what was missed by the Division Bench while deciding the writ appeal was the fact that the writ appeal was directed only against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1465 of 1995 and not against Writ Petition No. 7686 of 1993. Consequently, the order of reinstatement and back wages had become final between the parties and it is no longer in dispute, as fairly submitted by learned counsel for therespondent Corporation that the appellant is already reinstated in service with continuity of service. Now the question is whether the remand order passed for fresh enquiry regarding any back wages to be awarded to the appellant should be sustained. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that there was nothing before the Labour Court so far as the past record of the appellant was concerned, and in the writ appeal only the past record was considered. That may be so. But the fact remains that the past record which the Division Bench in the remand order has considered, could not effectively be challenged by the appellant. It may also be noted that there is no challenge in this appeal to the correctness of the past record and involvement of the appellant in the earlier five cases. We deem it fit to maintain his reinstatement and continuity of service. However, on the facts and circumstances of this case and looking to his past record, especially when the appellant himself confessed his involvement in Charges 1 and 2, before the Labour Court, there was no occasion for the Labour Court to grant him any back wages. Only on this short ground, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The remand order passed by the Division Bench is set aside. The appellants reinstatement with continuity of service is confirmed, however, without back wages. 7. No costs.