ANJANI KUMAR, J. This writ petition was heard by me and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the same was dismissed on 3rd September, 2003 for the reasons to be recorded later on. Now here are the reasons for dismissing the aforesaid writ petition. 2. The petitioner-employer, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the award of the Labour Court, U. P. Meerut dated 14th February, 1983, passed in adjudication case No. 124 of 1979 copy whereof is appended as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. 3. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication: "kya SEWAYOJKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK JAGAT SINGH (PUTRA SRI SARDAR SINGH) CHALAK KI SEWAYEN APNE ADESH DINANK 23-12-1975 DWARA SAMAPT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/athwa VAIDHANIK HAI? YADI NAHI TO SAMBANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA LABH/anutosh (RELIEF) PANE KA ADHIKARI HAI TATHA ANYA KIS VIVRAN SAHIT?" 4. The Labour Court issued notices to the parties namely the workman concerned as well as the employer and parties were directed to exchange their pleadings and adduce such evidence as they would like to adduce. After the exchange of the pleadings and the evidence, the case as is emerged between the parties that the workman concerned has set up his case that he was appointed on permanent basis against a permanent post. His work and conduct was satisfactory and the charge sheet was served on him due to vengeance and bias attitude. No domestic enquiry was conducted and that the workman concerned was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself. Thus, the termination of services of the workman concerned with effect from 23rd December, 1975 and the punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs. 264. 16 be set aside and the workman is entitled for re-instatement with effect from 23rd December, 1975 with continuity of service and full back wages alongwith all consequential benefits. 5. The petitioner-employer, in rebuttal of the case set up by the workmen concerned, have set up the case that the workman concerned, namely, Jagat Singh was appointed on 7th April, 1974 on purely temporary basis and his work and conduct was also not satisfactory and that there was a large number of complaint of misappropriating the diesel against the workman. The petitioner-employer, in rebuttal of the case set up by the workmen concerned, have set up the case that the workman concerned, namely, Jagat Singh was appointed on 7th April, 1974 on purely temporary basis and his work and conduct was also not satisfactory and that there was a large number of complaint of misappropriating the diesel against the workman. The In-charge of Hapur depot on inspection found that the workman had shown consumption of more diesel than the actual consumption and thus has misappropriated 254 litres of diesel, therefore, he was served with a charge sheet and it has been admitted by the workman concerned that at every stage that the workman was afforded full opportunity and only after the workman concerned was found guilty of the charges, the order impugned was passed. 6. Apart from above, the petitioner-employer have also raised one technical objection, which has been decided against the employer and the same has not been pressed before me by the employer. On the nature of appointment of the workman, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the workman concerned was appointed on 7th April, 1974 on officiating basis without any specified period and he has worked after the aforesaid period. Exhibit E-3 supports the findings recorded by the Labour Court and therefore the case set up by the employer that his services were liable to be terminated under the provisions of U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 by giving one month notice or paying in lieu thereof. On this aspect of the matter, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the aforesaid rules do not apply to the industrial law and if the employer take a defence that it is a case of termination of temporary employee, then the employer were bound to comply with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short the act ). The Labour Court further recorded a finding that in view of the fact that the workman concerned was appointed even assuming as per the case set up by the employer on officiating basis for indefinite period, the services of the workman could have been terminated only after complying with the provisions of U. P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, which admittedly has not been complied with. No enquiry report has been produced before the Labour Court and also no evidence has been produced in support of their case that there was any domestic enquiry before the termination of services of the workman concerned, neither any show cause notice has been issued to the workman as required under the aforesaid Rules. In this view of the matter, the Labour Court found that the enquiry, if any, and termination thereafter on the basis of the said enquiry is defective and contrary to the provisions of law and therefore will amount a case where no domestic enquiry was conducted, nor the provisions of Rule 55 of the U. P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1975 have been complied with regard to the domestic enquiry by the employer. 7. In reply to the argument advanced by the employer that since the workman concerned has accepted his guilt, the Labour Court recorded finding that on the basis of materials on record, it cannot be said that the workman concerned has accepted his guilt, therefore, Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the workman concerned that the employers action in terminating the services of workman with effect from 23rd December, 1975 is illegal and not justified. The termination therefore, cannot be termed as retrenchment because the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act have not been complied with by the employer. Thus, the Labour Court directed the workman concerned to be re-instated with full back wages and continuity of service alongwith all consequential benefits. 8. Before this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employer have reiterated the same arguments, but in the teeth of the findings recorded by the Labour Court over which this Court cannot sit in appeal in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I find that no ground is made out for interference with the award impugned in the present writ petition and the writ petition has no force. 9. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner-employer that admittedly after termination of services of the workman concerned i. e. 23rd December, 1975, the workman concerned has not worked for a single day, therefore, in view of the law declared by the apex Court, the Labour Court has committed an error in awarding full back wages and re-instatement. This Court vide its interim order dated 23rd May, 1983 directed that the workman concerned will be paid wages with effect from 14th February, 1983 till up date and it will be open to the employer whether to take work or not from him. 10. In this view of the matter, the workman must have been paid the wages. A counter-affidavit alongwith an application for stay vacation has been filed in which the age of the workman was shown to be 40 years and no orders were passed on the stay vacation application by this Court while this affidavit was sworned on 9th August, 1983, therefore, the workman concerned, by this time, must have been superannuated and must have been received the wages in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, as nothing contrary has been brought on record. 11. In this view of the matter, the last argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employer is accepted that in terms of the award impugned in the present writ petition, the workman concerned shall not be entitled for anything else except what has already been paid to him under the interim order passed by this Court. This writ petition, therefore, is allowed in part. The award impugned in the present writ petition passed by the Labour Court is modified accordingly. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. .