ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS U. P. State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the employer, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the award of the Industrial Tribunal (4), U. P. Agra, herein after referred to as the tribunal, dated 23/11/1996, passed in Adjudication Case No. 89 of 1991, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE State Government in exercise of its power under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) vide order dated 10/12/1990 have referred the following dispute before the Tribunal for adjudication. "whether the termination of the services of workman Natwar Singh son of Shri Bankey lal designation Chaukidar from 16/12/1989 by the employer is illegal and/or improper? If so, to what relief/ compensation is he entitled and, with what other details?" ( 3 ) THE Tribunal after receipt of the aforesaid reference from the State government issued notices to the parties concerned and both the parties have exchanged their pleadings and filed such evidences, as they desire to file. The respondent No. 1, the workman concerned in its pleadings has set up the case before the tribunal -that he was employed under the verbal order of the then Executive Engineer. Secondary Works Division, U. P. State electricity Board on a consolidated salary of rs. 600/- per month and that he was employed from 1/04/1989 and worked continuously till his services were illegally and arbitrarily terminated by the employer on 16/12/1989. The workman has also alleged that since he continued to work as Chaukidar, therefore he had requested the employer to pay the wages in the pay-scale of Rs. 900-1190 plus dearness allowance, house rent allowance, CCA and Medical allowance etc. , which was the scale for the post against which he was working. He has also alleged that his services were orally terminated from 16/12/1989 and that on 19/12/1989 another person related to the executive Engineer was employed in his place. Thus, there has been violation of sections 6-N, 6-P and 6-Q of the Act and he should consequently be reinstated with full back wages with continuity of service with effect from 16/12/1989. He has also alleged that his services were orally terminated from 16/12/1989 and that on 19/12/1989 another person related to the executive Engineer was employed in his place. Thus, there has been violation of sections 6-N, 6-P and 6-Q of the Act and he should consequently be reinstated with full back wages with continuity of service with effect from 16/12/1989. As against this the employer have set up the case in their pleading that the workman was never employed by the employer as there is no such post and in fact he has never worked with them, as alleged. With regard to the request made by the workman that the employer may be directed to produce the muster roll of the relevant period, the employer have stated that since the workman has never been employed, there is no documents available with them regarding the workman concerned. The employer have not produced the muster roll and the relevant records where it is alleged that the workman concerned has worked with them. On a question being put in the cross examination, the Executive Engineer has not been able to explain as to how the Board was maintaining a store worth Rs. 20 lacs if there was no Chaukidar. The employer have stated that there was no Chaukidar and in any case this work was given to the security agency, but no such contract with the security agency was produced either by documentary evidence, or by any other method by the employer. Thus, according to the Tribunal the employer have not denied the existence of the store and also the existence of the past and personate of Chaukidar but they tried to distinguish the claim of the workman concerned that the supervision and surveillance was entrusted to the security agency, but neither any documents, nor any other statement was produced before the tribunal. As already stated above, the executive Engineer in his cross examination has not denied these facts. Admittedly the workman concerned had been sending registered letters to the employer seeking employment with them after the alleged unlawful termination of his services by the employer, which shows that six posts of chaukidar were sanctioned in Superintending engineers Circle which includes the division in which the workman was employed and that the sanctioned grade for Chaukidar was Rs. 900-1190. Admittedly the workman concerned had been sending registered letters to the employer seeking employment with them after the alleged unlawful termination of his services by the employer, which shows that six posts of chaukidar were sanctioned in Superintending engineers Circle which includes the division in which the workman was employed and that the sanctioned grade for Chaukidar was Rs. 900-1190. It is also averred by the workman that the payment salary lesser amount than the sanctioned grade for Chaukidar amounts to unfair labour practice under Section 2 (r), read with the V Schedule-Item 10 of the Act. ( 4 ) SEVERAL persons were examined on behalf of both the workmen as well as the employer and after considering the material evidence on record the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that workman Natwar Singh was employed by the Board on a consolidated salary of Rs. 60 (Y- per month from 1/04/1989 to 16/12/1989, but he was not paid salary which was assured to him for work as chaukidar. Paying any salary lesser than rate sanctioned by the department amounts to unfair labour practice. The Tribunal has further stated that another person was employed on the same post from 19/12/1989 and also several workmen continued to be in the employment of the Board after 1978, whereas a bar was imposed on fresh employment on daily wages. It is thus clear that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back-wages and all service benefits from 16/12/1989. ( 5 ) SRI Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to assail the findings recorded by the Tribunal, which are based on the consideration of the evidence on record and are findings of fact. In this view of the matter, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ( 6 ) SRI Saxena further submitted that admittedly the workman has not worked for a day beyond 16/12/1989 till date. Considering the submissions made by Sri saxena, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the workman would be entitled to the 50 per cent of the wages from the date of reference till the date of the award and not the entire back wages. ( 7 ) WITH the aforesaid modification in the award of the Tribunal, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim Order/orders, if any, stands vacated. ( 7 ) WITH the aforesaid modification in the award of the Tribunal, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim Order/orders, if any, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. .