ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed that instead of deciding the stay vacation application, the writ petition itself may be heard and decided on merits. ( 2 ) THE petitioners aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court-IV, Kanpur dated 17th January, 1998 passed in adjudication Case No. 60 of 1996, (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), have approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The following dispute was referred for adjudication to the labour court: powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 3 ) LASTLY, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman concerned has not worked from the date of termination till the date of award. Therefore, on the basis of principle of no work No Pay, the labour court has definitely committed error in granting reinstatement with full back wages at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. In my opinion, this argument deserves to be accepted. It is not disputed that the workman concerned had admittedly not worked during all these period and considering the interest of justice, the award of the labour court is modified to the extent that instead of payment of back wages at the rate of rs. 600/- per month, the workman concerned is entitled for the back wages at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the date of termination till the date of award. ( 4 ) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed except with the modification that instead of payment of back wages at the rate of rs. 600/- per month, the workman concerned is entitled for the back wages at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the date of termination till the date of award. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs. . .