JUDGMENT 1. :- Vide the impugned Award, the Labour Court had set-aside the order of termination of the non-petitioner (workman) for being in violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act. The non-petitioner has been awarded the back benefits including the full back wages. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the non-petitioner had worked only for about 165 days and was a daily wager and in such circumstances there was hardly any necessity for the Labour Court to have granted the full back wages. Primarily the counsel for the petitioner contests the granting of full back wages only. 2. Mr. Manoj Pareek Advocate appears for the non-petitioners and submits that even the Award in regard to back wages is modified the non-petitioner shall have no objection for the reason that the non-petitioner is interested to have the job instead of wages. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and submissions made by the counsel, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where a modification in regard to back wages is necessary and as such the impugned Award dated 24.11.1998, Annexure 3 is modified to the extent that the non-petitioner shall be entitled to the back wages to the extent of 30% only.The writ petition is disposed of at admission stage with the consent of counsel for the parties.Petition Disposed of. *******