Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing part of the award dated 12th February, 1988 rendered by the Labour Court, Bhagalpur in Reference Case No. 12 of 1988 whereby it directed for reinstatement of the petitioner on the post of Amin but he has not ordered for payment of back wages. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on provisional basis as Amin by the Special District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar (respondent No. 2). His appointment was cancelled by the authority. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid action of the authority before this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 226 of 1983 and this Court ordered on 4.3.1985 for payment of salary till the order cancelling his appointment was served to him. It appears that in the meantime, the State Government made a reference before the Labour Court on 23.8.88. The terms of reference is as follows: Whether the dismissal of Sri Balram Prasad Sah, a terminated workman of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Madhya Sinchai Pariyojna, Deoghar is Justified? If not, what kind of relief he is entitled to? Upon notice the petitioner appeared but no body appeared on behalf of the Department-respondent. The Labour Court after considering the entire matter held that the dismissal of the petitioner was illegal and unjustified and directed for the reinstatement on the previous post. The Labour Court did not grant back wages to the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. 3 Unfortunately, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. 4. The petitioners appointment was a provisional one. The same was cancelled and this Court did not interfere with the said order and only directed for payment of salary for certain period. Thereafter, in my view, reference was not justified. However, as that is not challenged before me, no opinion is expressed on the same. After reference the Labour Court has found that the order of dismissal is illegal and accordingly he has quashed the same and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner on the previous post held by him. The State was not challenged that part of the order which has attained finality. In view of the direction given in the award, the petitioner has been reinstated on the previous post. 5. The State was not challenged that part of the order which has attained finality. In view of the direction given in the award, the petitioner has been reinstated on the previous post. 5. The only question for consideration in this case is as to whether in the facts of the case, a direction may be given for payment of back wages. Counsel for the petitioner states that as the petitioner was out of employment due to illegal order and was not employed gainfully any where, he is entitled to back wages in view of the settled law on this point. There is controversy as to the legal proposition that the Labour Court, has power to pass an order for payment of arrears of wages after setting aside the order of dismissal. This question whether direction for payment be given or not in a particular case depends upon the consideration of the facts of the case. In this case, as stated above, the petitioner was appointed purely on provisional basis and he was terminated in terms of the appointment letter. On the basis of the order passed by the Labour Court the petitioner has been reinstated although this Court did not direct for reinstatement of the petitioner as stated above. There is nothing on the record to show that the State Government after knowledge of the order of this Court referred the matter to the Labour Court. Taking into consideration these facts, I can only say that the petitioner is fortunate as the award for reinstatement has been passed in his favour and the same has not been challenged by the State Government in this Court. 6. Taking into consideration the facts of this case, I am of the view that no direction for payment of back wages can be passed as the same will not serve the cause of justice because the petitioner has got more than what he deserved in this case. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.