Judgment S. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) AS common questions of law and fact involve in both the writ petitions they being disposed by a common order. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner seeks to quash the award dated 22/02/1994, whereby the removal of the petitioner although was declared illegal but in view of the fact that the petitioner was reinstated in the services with effect from 12/08/1988 no relief was granted to him in regard to reinstatement and it was directed that the petitioner was entitled only to the wages with effect from 1/03/198 8/08/1988. It was further directed that the petitioner shall be treated in the services continuously. The petitioner lias made a prayer seeking modification of the award dated 11/02/1994 to the extent that relief of reinstatement in the services be accorded to him. ( 3 ) IT appears from the perusal of the award that on behalf of the respondent employer no evidence was adduced and the impugned award has been passed on the basis of uncontroverted testimony of the petitioner workman. Learned labour Court looking to the facts that the petitioner-workman, during the pendency of reference, was taken back on duty on 12/08/1988, held in the impugned award that the petitioner was only entitled to the wages for the period of 1/03/1988 till 11/08/1988. ( 4 ) I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. ( 5 ) MR. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for respondent employer, raised a preliminary objection that after the petitioner was taken back on duty the relief sought by him did not survive and the impugned award deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent further canvassed that in view of the subsequent orders dated 26/05/1994 and 1/09/1994, passed by learned industrial Tribunal, Bharatpur, which are under challenge in writ petition No. 899/1995, no relief can be granted to the petitioner workman. ( 6 ) A perusal of the order dated 26/05/1994, reveals that the application under Section 33-A read with Rule 59 was moved by the petitioner workman with the averments that during pendency of reference LCR No. 167/89, the removal of workman from the services on 22/02/1988 was illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated back in the services with all consequential benefits. As. As. nobody on behalf of the employer appeared to contest the application an ex parte order dated 26/05/1994 came to be passed, whereby the workman was ordered to be reinstated in services. Thereafter on behalf of the employer an application for setting aside the said ex parte order was moved. But the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application vide order dated 7/09/1994. Assailing the said orders, mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for employer contended that the application under section 33-A read with Rule 59 was not maintainable and both the orders deserve to be set aside. ( 7 ) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur in its award dated 22/02/1994 ought to have completely decided the point referred to it by the State Government and once the Labour court arrived at the conclusion that the removal of workman from the service was illegal, the order of his reinstatement ought to have been made. In view of the fact that the impugned award is based on the uncontroverted testimony of workman, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the submissions advanced before me by learned counsel for the employer. Even if a workman is taken back in the services temporarily during pendency of the reference the point under reference is required to be adjudicated. ( 8 ) IN the light of what I have discussed herein above, I allow the writ petition No. 1641/1997 and modify the impugned award dated 22/02/1994. The respondent employer is directed to reinstate the petitioner workman back in the services with all consequential benefits including the back wages. The employer however shall be entitled to deduct the wages, paid to petitioner during the intervening period. ( 9 ) IN view of the directions issued in writ petition No. 1641/1997, the writ petition No. 899/1995 automatically stands disposed of. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.