Judgment : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. ( 1 ) IN this case, the management, Tinplate company of India Ltd. , (Company for short) has challenged the award dated 10/02/1994 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 6/1988, whereby the management has been directed to pay entire back wages except for the period from 28/08/198 5/10/1985 during which the workman was in custody. The sole question to be determined in this case whether the management is liable to pay back wages till the date of award, except the period in the facts and circumstances of the case or not. ( 2 ) THE admitted fact is that the workman, kashi Nath Mishra who was in the services of the Company, was taken in custody on 28/08/1985 in pursuance of a criminal case and remained in custody till 25/10/1985 i. e. till he was enlarged on bail. The management struck off the name of the workman from the roll as per provision of order 16 (b) of the: standing Order without any domestic enquiry. ( 3 ) AT the instance of the Union, a conciliation proceeding started and on the direction of the Conciliation Officer, the management agreed to reinstate the workman in service, vide letter No. M-1/10/pd-2805, dated 8/11/1986 (Annexure-I), but without back wages. ( 4 ) IT appears that the workman was not, satisfied, so at the instance of the Union, appropriate Government referred the following dispute for adjudication:"whether termination of service of Shri A. N. Mishra Ticket No. 457, Security Guard of tinplate Co. of India Ltd. Jamshedpur is justified? If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement, or any other relief?" ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, inspite of letter of reinstatement dated 8/11/1986, the workman did not resume the duty. The reference made at his instance being Reference case No. 6/99 was persuaded by him. ( 6 ) THE management brought to the notice of the learned Presiding Officer that at the instance of the Conciliation Officer, they agreed to reinstate the workman in service without back wages, therefore, there was no occasion to determine the issue, as referred. However, the learned Presiding Officer on discussion of evidence held the retrenchment illegal and allowed full back wages up to the date of award i. e. 10/02/1994, except the period the petitioner was in custody. However, the learned Presiding Officer on discussion of evidence held the retrenchment illegal and allowed full back wages up to the date of award i. e. 10/02/1994, except the period the petitioner was in custody. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the workman was reinstated, as back as, on 8/11/1986 and was informed of the order of reinstatement. If the management refused to grant back wages of intervening period i. e. from 15/09/198 5/11/1986 i. e. the date of reinstatement the workman could have persuaded the reference to that extent, but it was not open to the workman to refuse to join the post in spite of order of reinstatement. ( 8 ) THE plea taken by the workman that there being dispute of back wages he did not join, cannot be a ground to ask for back wages without any work. ( 9 ) FOR the reason aforesaid, while I hold that the workman is entitled for full back wages for the period he was out of service i. e. from the date of retrenchment up to the date of reinstatement, he cannot be allowed the back wages from the date of reinstatement, having not resumed the work. ( 10 ) ). Learned Presiding Officer, Labour court, Jamshedpur having erred to take into consideration the facts aforesaid, the award dated 10/02/1994 passed in reference case No. 6 of 1988 is modified to the extent above. ( 11 ) SO far as the salary during the pendency of the writ petition is concerned, the workman will be entitled from the date he actually resumed the duty on the basis of reinstatement order. If he has not resumed the duty, will not be entitled for salary for the period he has not worked. ( 12 ) THE writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order, as to costs. --- *** --- .