JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the awards Part I and Part II, dated 17 August 1994 and 19 December 1994 respectively passed by the Third Labour Court, Mumbai, in Reference (IDA) No. 161 of 1987 a proceeding under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing heavy engineering items. The first respondent was employed as watchman in the petitioner's company sometime in 1966. On 13 December 1984 the then Managing Director of the company while taking a round found that the first respondent had deserted his post and chitchatting with his colleagues at some other plant. On the next day the first respondent gave a written apology admitting the mistake and assuring that he would not commit such mistake in future and requested that he may be given one more chance. The first respondent was charge-sheeted for the above misconduct. During the enquiry the first respondent retracted his confession and claimed that the apology was given under coercion. The enquiry officer gave his report holding the first respondent guilty of misconduct. Consequently by letter, dated 6 May 1986, the workman was dismissed from service. 3. The workman raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement which resulted in a Reference (IDA) No. 161 of 1987 to the Third Labour Court at Bombay By Part I award, dated 17 August 1994. the Labour Court held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. It seems that no evidence was led by the company after the award Pan I was made although opportunity was given to adduce evidence to establish the misconduct. By award Pan II, dated 19 December 1994, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman with full back-wages. 4. It is required to be stated at this stage that the workman has been reinstated in service. Thus the present petition is confined only to the issue of back-wages. Sn Singh learned counsel for the petitioners contended that enquiry was not challenged by the workman on the ground of non-payment of subsistence allowance. No such averment was made in the statement of claim. It is for the first time before the Labour Court the workman has deposed that he was not paid the subsistence allowance during the suspension period of 15 months. No such averment was made in the statement of claim. It is for the first time before the Labour Court the workman has deposed that he was not paid the subsistence allowance during the suspension period of 15 months. Sn Singh submitted that in the absence of any pleadings the Labour Court was not right in holding that the enquiry was vitiated on the ground of non-payment of subsistence allowance. Secondly Sri Singh submitted that the workman and his representative participated in the enquiry initially but thereafter they remained absent and, therefore, the enquiry officer had to proceed ex parte. Under the circumstances it cannot be said that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. In any event Sri Singh submitted that the Labour Court ought not to have granted full back-wages since the employee has accepted his guilt in the apology letter. Sn Singh submitted that the company is declared as sick undertaking by the BIFR. Sri Singh submitted that taking into consideration these circumstances the Labour Court ought not to have granted back-wages to the workman. 5. Sri Ganguli for the workman submitted that the workman has deposed in his evidence that no subsistence allowance was paid to him during the suspension period. This statement was not challenged by the management. No evidence was led to show that the subsistence allowance was paid to the workman Under the circumstances the Labour Court was right in holding that the inquiry was vitiated Sri Ganguli relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines, Ltd. [ 1999 (2) L.L.N. 640 ). Sri Ganguli submitted that xerox copies produced by the company are totally illegible and therefore the Labour Court was fully justified in not placing reliance upon the said copies. Sn Ganguli submitted that the workman was not employed during he period of suspension. The Labour Court has therefore rightly granted full back-wages and this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction should not interfere with the said order 6. It is not disputed before me by Sri Singh that the subsistence allowance was not paid to the workman during the suspension period. The workman has deposed to that effect in the examination-in-chief and there is no challenge to the same in the cross-examination. It is not disputed before me by Sri Singh that the subsistence allowance was not paid to the workman during the suspension period. The workman has deposed to that effect in the examination-in-chief and there is no challenge to the same in the cross-examination. The Labour Court relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Madhukar Janardhan Mulay v. State of Maharashtra [1989 (1) L.L.N. 372], and held that the enquiry was vitiated on the ground that the workman was not paid the subsistence allowance during the pendency of the enquiry. In the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines, Ltd., [ 1999 (2) L.L.N. 640 ] (vide supra), the Supreme Court held that the provisions of payment of subsistence allowance made in the service rules only ensures non-violation of the right to life of the employee. When the employee is placed under suspension, he is demobilised and the salary is also paid to him at a reduced rate under the nick name of “subsistence allowance,” so that the employee may sustain himself. The very object of paying the reduced salary to the employee during the period of suspension would be frustrated if even subsistence allowance is not paid because “subsistence” means of supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood. The act of non-payment of subsistence allowance can be likened to slow poisoning as the employee, if not permitted to sustain himself on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance would gradually starve himself to death. In the instant case it is not the case of the company that the subsistence allowance was paid to the employee during the suspension period which lasted for nearly 15 months. The workman was employed on a meagre, salary as a watchman. Even the token amount of subsistence allowance was not paid to him during the suspension period. It is true that this ground is not specifically raised in the statement of claim but having regard to the fact that the company is unable to lead any evidence to show that the payment of subsistence allowance was made, no interference is called for with the finding of the Labour Court in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Secondly the enquiry papers are also not produced before the Court. 7. Secondly the enquiry papers are also not produced before the Court. There is nothing to indicate that the date of the enquiry was communicated to the workman or his representative. The xerox copies produced by the company are unreadable. Thus the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the enquiry was not fair and proper. It is not disputed that opportunity was given to the company for leading evidence to establish the charge of misconduct. However, no evidence was led and thus the Labour Court has rightly ordered reinstatement. 8. Normally reinstatement of a person in service should carry direction to payment of back-wages. However, I feel in the present case awarding 50 per cent of the back-wages will be justified. As stated earlier there is a letter of the workman himself put on record admitting the guilt on his part. The company is before the BEFR and it is declared a sick unit. Under the circumstances award of full back-wages is not possible and sustainable. In my opinion the ends of justice would be served if the company is directed to pay 50 per cent of the back-wages. Accordingly the order of the Labour Court is partly modified directing that the workman would be entitled to 50 per cent of the back-wages instead of 100 per cent back-wages. 9. Rule is made partly absolute. Petitioner to pay the back-wages within eight weeks.