J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application is directed against the award and order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference [ L. C. V. ] No. 168 of 1981, which came to be passed, on 22. 11. 1984, and nothing has been shown as to why the direction, that the respondent should be treated in service with effect from 1. 1. 1982 and the salary should be calculated accordingly, is unjust, unreasonable, which requires our interference in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Industrial Tribunal, at Baroda, who decided the reference, has rightly found that the respondent was working as a Clerk since last more than 15 years. The respondent went on maternity leave from 6. 10. 1975 to 16. 12. 1975. Thereafter her health was not good to resume duty. She was, therefore, on leave from 18th December,1975 to 11th January,1976 without pay. On the ground of illhealth, the respondent could not join the service. Thereafter she had written a letter to the Ward Officer that she will join her duties on 6th December, 1976 but on 10th December, 1976 the Ward Officer, sent a letter to the respondent that as per the instructions of the Municipal Commissioner, she was not allowed to join her duties. ( 2 ) IT is also not in dispute that departmental inquiry or any procedure was not followed and, despite that her service was terminated on 3. 7. 1980. The appellant, by filing the written statement, at Exh. 10, challenged the respondents claim and the case of the Corporation is that from 14th December, 1973 to 17th August,1975, the respondent was constantly remaining absent from the duties. After the maternity leave, the respondent-workman was on sick leave but without pay. The Labour Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and evaluating the evidence on record, reached to the conclusion that the respondent should be treated in service, and accordingly the service of the respondent shall have to be decided from 1. 1. 1982. While passing the order of reinstatement, the Industrial Tribunal, has directed 50% of the back wages along with the permissible benefits like pension, gratuity and other rights and quashed the termination order dated 3. 7. 1984. It, therefore, becomes clear from the record that the respondent-workman has been found entitled to 50 % of back wages. 1. 1982. While passing the order of reinstatement, the Industrial Tribunal, has directed 50% of the back wages along with the permissible benefits like pension, gratuity and other rights and quashed the termination order dated 3. 7. 1984. It, therefore, becomes clear from the record that the respondent-workman has been found entitled to 50 % of back wages. After having taken into consideration the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal and considering the facts and circumstances, and bearing in mind the latest case law on the point, this Court has no hesitation in finding that the impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal is justified requiring no interference, exercising constitutional writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the Special Civil Application shall stand rejected. Consequently, the application is rejected, without any order as to costs. Rule is discharged. .