JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Laxman Uraon, JJ. 1. The appellant was in the services of the respondent M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur (herein after referred to as TELCO for short). 2. The appellant remained absent from duty since 14th March, 1987 and a prisoners petition has preferred by him on 18th March, 1987 from District Jail, Jamshedpur. It appears that in pursuance of a criminal case registered under Section 377, IPC for committing unnatural offence, the appellant was taken in custody. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against him for absence from duty. In the departmental proceeding, the charges against the appellant having proved as per Standing Order, he was dismissed from the services of TELCO. 3. At the instance of the appellant, a reference was made by appropriate Govt., registered as Reference Case No. 2/89. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur vide impugned award dated 20th January, 1996 held that the punishment was disproportionate and a lessor punishment would have meet the ends of justice. 4. Accordingly, the award was passed in favour of appellant. He was reinstated with continuity of service, but without any back wages. The period of absence from duty was ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due and in case no leave is due. as leave without pay. 5. The counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision in Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 635 , wherein the Court held that while order of dismissal based on enquiry is set aside, consequential relief of reinstatement with back wages can be allowed in appropriate cases. 6. We have heard, perused the award and the impugned judgment dated 24th September, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2675 of 1996 (R). The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Pal Singh, reported in AIR 1997 SC 608 , observed that in certain circumstances, the award of reinstatement without back wages is justified. 7. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. v. Pal Singh, reported in AIR 1997 SC 608 , observed that in certain circumstances, the award of reinstatement without back wages is justified. 7. In the present case, as the circumstances based on facts has been assessed by the learned Presiding Officer and determined as to how the intervening period shall be counted and what salary to which the appellant shall be entitled, such finding having accepted by the learned Single Judge, we find no reason to give separate finding in appeal. 8. There being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.