Order The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Heard the parties. The Labour Court in the impugned Award found that because the respondent no. 2 was illiterate and had only affixed his Thumb Impression, giving of the father's name wrongly could be attributed to only his being illiterate and secondly, in any case, there is neither any finding by the Labour Court nor any material was produced before it to suggest that the respondent no. 2 was to gain any advantage as such by wrongly and purposely giving his father's name either for securing employment as a dependent of a landloser or for any other reason. The learned Single Judge, agreeing with the finding of the Labour Court, dismissed the writ application. We see no reason to interfere. Actually at this stage Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that if we do not grant back wages to the workman, i.e., respondent no. 2 the appellant will not be averse to the reinstatement of respondent no. 2, by virtue of this order that we are passing in this appeal. 2. On the question of payment of backwages, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted and rightly so upon instructions of this client, that the respondent shall not claim backwages if only he is reinstated in service. 3. Based on the aforesaid statements of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that even though the reimltatement of the Respondent no. 2 is to be upheld but the same has to be done without the payment of backwages. The respondent no. 2, therefore, shall be reinstated but without payment of any backwages. The process of reinstatement of respondent no. 2 with the appellant shall be completed within two months from today. 4. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal is dismissed, but by seting aside that part of the impugned Award which had granted the benefit of payment of backwages to the respondent no. 2.