ARUN TANDON, J. This judgment shall apply to the writ petition Nos. 24161 of 1992, 24159 of 1992, 24160 of 1992, 24162 of 1992, 24163 of 1992, 24164 of 1992, 24165 of 1992, 24167 of 1992, 24268 of 1992, 24169 of 1992. 2. Heard Sri Ram Gopal Tiwari on behalf of the petitioner. Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate as well as Sri Shyam Narain on behalf of the respondent workmen. 3. These writ petitions have been filed by U. P. Co-operative Federation Limited, Lucknow against the award of the Labour Court dated 4-6-1991, 18-7-1991, 27-7-1991, 18-7-1991, 22-7-1991, 5-9-1991, 4-6- 1991, 27-7-1991, 27-7-1991 and 22-7-1991. 4. The respondent workmen were appointed on Class-IV posts in the employment of petitioner co- operative federation. On certain charges the workmen were served with charge sheet which was filed by the workmen and for the purpose of enquiry on the charges levelled against the workmen. Inquiry Officer was appointed. It is stated that since the workmen did not participate in the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer conducted an ex parte enquiry and submitted its ex parte enquiry report and on the said ex parte inquiry report the workmen were dismissed from service. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid action taken by the workmen raised an industrial dispute. The State Government, in exercise of power under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, Meerut. 6. The Labour Court by means of the award dated 4-6-1991, 18-7-1991, 27-7-1991, 18-7-1991, 22-7- 1991, 5-9-1991, 4-6-1991, 27-7-1991, 27-7-1991 and 22-7-1991 has held that the order dismissing the workmen from service has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, proceeded to afford an opportunity to the employers to lead evidence for bringing home the charges against the workmen. The employers fail to avail the said opportunity and did not lead any evidence for establishing the charges as leveled against the workmen. 7. The Labour Court, in these circumstances, by means of the award dated 4-6-1991, 18-7-1991, 27-7- 1991, 18-7-1991, 22-7-1991, 5-9-1991, 4-6-1991, 27-7-1991, 27-7-1991 and 22-7-1991 has held that the action of the employers was not justified and illegal, consequently directed that the workmen are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. 8. 7. The Labour Court, in these circumstances, by means of the award dated 4-6-1991, 18-7-1991, 27-7- 1991, 18-7-1991, 22-7-1991, 5-9-1991, 4-6-1991, 27-7-1991, 27-7-1991 and 22-7-1991 has held that the action of the employers was not justified and illegal, consequently directed that the workmen are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. 8. After the said award was published, the petitioner employers claimed that they have filed an application for recall of the aforesaid ex parte award. The said application has also been rejected by the Labour Court. The award as well as order of the Labour Court rejecting the application for recall of the ex parte award are under challenge in the present writ petition. 9. So far as the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the application for recall of the ex parte award is concerned, the said order has been passed on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said application as the same has been filed after more than 30 days of the publication of the award. The reasoning assigned by the Labour Court is in accordance with the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 606 , Grindlays Bank Limited v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors. The order of the Labour Court refusing to entertain the application for setting aside the ex parte award calls for no interference. 10. So far as the ex parte award of the Labour Court is concerned, the Labour Court has noticed that opportunity was afforded to the employer to bring home the charges against the workmen but the employer themselves failed to avail the said opportunity. Despite knowledge of the date fixed to lead evidence, the employer did not appear before the Labour Court nor they moved any application seeking time to lead such evidence. The Labour Court has rightly proceeded to decide the dispute in the absence of the employers. The employers even thereafter did not take any appropriate step within reasonable time and permitted the award to be published and enforced and only thereafter they filed an application for recall of the ex parte award. 11. The Labour Court has rightly proceeded to decide the dispute in the absence of the employers. The employers even thereafter did not take any appropriate step within reasonable time and permitted the award to be published and enforced and only thereafter they filed an application for recall of the ex parte award. 11. From the application which has been filed for recall of the ex parte award, which is enclosed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, it is further clear that the reasons assigned for non appearance before the Labour Court on the date fixed, are wholly irrelevant and do not justify the absence of the petitioner employer in any manner. 12. In such circumstances, the award of the Labour Court cannot be faulted with and writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. 13. It is, however, directed that the workmen shall be entitled to be reinstated on the post on which they were working on the date of termination and shall be entitled to the same salary and the wages as were applicable to the said post since revised from time to time. 14. Since the dispute as has been raised in the rejoinder affidavit with regards to payment of salary to the workmen, was not agitated upon by the employers before the Labour Court, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merit of the said controversy. It is always open to the parties concerned to get their right decided before the Labour Court in respect of subsequent payment. 15. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that between 1986 to 1992 i. e. from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, as directed by an interim order of this Court, the workmen have not discharged any duty in the employment of petitioner. On the principle of no work no pay the workmen shall be entitled to only 50% of their back wages for the period between 1986 to 1992. 16. In view of the aforesaid, the award of the Labour Court affirmed subject to the modification that the workman shall be entitled to only 50% of their back wages for the period 1986 to 1992. Petition allowed. .