ORDER : 1. Respondent No. 2 is an employee of the Appellant Establishment. His services came to be terminated on the ground that he indulged in an illegal strike and instigated other workers to join the strike. The said strike was declared to be illegal by the Labour Court but before such declaration the strike had been withdrawn. Thus it was contended that the strike was not illegal in terms of Section 25(5) of the Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Trade Practices Act, 1971 (‘Act’ for short ). 2. On this aspect of the matter the finding recorded by the Revisional Court, which Court was approached after dismissal of the dispute raised by the second respondent, is that the strike could not be deemed to be illegal and hence the second respondent could not be charged for the offence alleged against him. It, therefore, set aside the order of dismissal and directed his reinstatement but without back wages. When this order was challenged by way of a writ petition both by the Appellant and the workman to the extent they were respectively aggrieved the High Court affirmed the order in revision and also awarded back wages. 3. The High Court found on interpretation of Section 25(5) of the Act when any strike declared to be illegal under Section 25 of the Act is withdrawn within forty eight hours of such declaration such strike shall not be deemed illegal under the Act to include a situation when strike is called off and work resumed before declaration by the Labour Court. In its view it is unreasonable to assume that workmen shall be punished merely because they did not continue strike until declaration by Labour Court and withdraw thereafter. The reasoning of the High Court appears to us to be sound. In our view the provision of Section 25(5) of the Act enabling the striking workmen to atone within 48 hours of declaration of such strike being illegal, and if the strike is called off earlier the objective having been achieved the fiction under Section 25(5) of the Act is available. Hence the contention of the appellant has rightly been rejected. 4. The High Court on examination of the matter came to the conclusion that the workman is entitled to the back wages as he had not been gainfully employed during the period he was out of service. Hence the contention of the appellant has rightly been rejected. 4. The High Court on examination of the matter came to the conclusion that the workman is entitled to the back wages as he had not been gainfully employed during the period he was out of service. This being a finding of fact as to whether the second respondent was gainfully employed during the relevant period or not, we think there is no question for examination in this matter particularly in a proceeding arising under Article 136 of the Constitution. Hence we decline to interfere with the order made by the High Court, which affirmed the order of the Revisional Court. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.