B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the Award of the Labour court in I. D. No. 62/92, which was published in the Gazette on 15-10-1994, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition to the extent it went against his interest i. e. , denying back wages while ordering reinstatement with continuity of service. ( 2 ) THE Labour Court having gone into the matter in depth passed the Award directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service and denied back wages as the petitioner failed to produce any evidence that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period under which he was out of service. Hence, I cannot find fault with the order of the Labour Court and accordingly it is confirmed. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was kept under suspension on 22-10-1987 and he was removed from service on 22-9-1988 and for the said period the Corporation failed to pay Subsistence Allowance. ( 4 ) IN view of the above, the respondents are directed to find out whether any subsistence Allowance was paid to the petitioner while he was under suspension before the order of termination was passed and if the contention of the petitioner is true, the petitioner is entitled for subsistence Allowance as the termination comes into force only after the services were terminated i. e. , 29-2-88. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that though the Labour court passed the Award on 30-7-1994, which was accepted by the Government vide G. O. Rt. No. 293 dated 11-10-1994 and published in the Gazette on 15-12-1994, the corporation has taken nearly 6 months to reinstate the petitioner. ( 6 ) SMT. Nanda R. Rao, the learned standing Counsel for the Corporation contended that unless the workman approaches the Corporation and expresses his willingness to take up appointment after the Award has become final, the question of giving appointment to the workman does not arise and as such the Court cannot grant relief of back wages from the date of publication of the Award in the Gazette till the date of reinstatement. She further submits that there are judgments to that effect. ( 7 ) I am extremely sorry, I cannot agree to the above contention of the learned standing Counsel for the Corporation. She further submits that there are judgments to that effect. ( 7 ) I am extremely sorry, I cannot agree to the above contention of the learned standing Counsel for the Corporation. The corporation which suffered an adverse award is expected to send posting order to the workman immediately after publication of the Award in the Gazette. That was not the case here. Hence, the contention of the respondents Counsel is rejected. ( 8 ) IN my view, there is every justification for the petitioner to claim salary after the award became final and for the lapses on the part of the respondents in reinstating the petitioner into service, he cannot be denied back wages. Accordingly, the official respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner from 15-12-1994, the day on which the Award became final, till the date of his reinstatement. The amounts due on both the claims have to be paid by the official respondents within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 9 ) THE Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.