ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The respondent was employed as a seasonal clerk with the appellant. On the ground that the respondent had absented himself continuously, his services were terminated under Regulation 32 of the U.P. Cane Cooperative Services Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"). The respondent challenged the termination and in his claim before the Labour Court it was stated in para 8 that he had never applied for leave. Therefore unauthorised leave could not be treated the basis for terminating his services under Regulation 32. The Labour Court, however, found that the action under Regulation 32 was justified. 3. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred a writ petition from the rejection of his claim by the Labour Court. The writ petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 9-10-2003. The High Court held that Regulation 32 of the Regulations had been wrongfully invoked by the appellant arid applied by the Labour Court and that the applicable regulation was Regulation 28 which had not been complied with. The decision of the High Court has been challenged by the appellant. 4. The relevant Regulations which are admittedly applicable are Regulations 27, 28 and 32. Regulation 27 provides for the procedure to be followed in case there was a complaint against any member of the seasonal staff. The Secretary of the Union is then required to make a preliminary enquiry and if he is satisfied that a prima facie case is established against the person concerned then he is' required to intimate the same to him in the form I of charges and call for his explanation within a time-frame. Having examined the record the Secretary is then required to file his final report recommending the punishment if any to the district or zonal authority. The district or zonal authority is required to dispose of the matter on the basis of the recommendations. The procedure prescribed in Regulation 27, however, does not apply to a person who has absconded or is continuously absent from duty for a week or where for other reasons it is impracticable to communicate with him. In such a case, the Secretary shall submit his final report to the district or zonal authority stating the reasons for not following the procedure laid down in Regulation 27 together with his views and recommendations based on the record available for passing the final order in the case. In such a case, the Secretary shall submit his final report to the district or zonal authority stating the reasons for not following the procedure laid down in Regulation 27 together with his views and recommendations based on the record available for passing the final order in the case. It is apparent from Regulations 27 and 28 that the Secretary's role is limited to making a final report and he is not empowered to pass any order of termination. 5. Regulation 32 reads as follows: "32. Leave to seasonal staff-Seasonal staff shall not be entitled to any type of leave except casual leave up to 10 days during anyone crushing season. Grant of leave shall be in the discretion of the Secretary of the Union and no employee could claim it as a matter of right. In special cases leave beyond 10 days may be allowed as leave without pay up to sixty days after which the services of the employees will automatically be deemed to have been terminated." 6. It is apparent from this Regulation that it comes into operation only in case leave is applied for by the seasonal staff. It is not in dispute that no such leave was applied for. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court correctly held that Regulation 32 would not apply but that Regulation 28 at the highest would apply. In this case it is also not in dispute that the procedure prescribed in Regulation 28, assuming that the respondent was absent, had not been followed. The writ petition accordingly was rightfully all owed. However, in allowing the writ petition the appellant Society was directed to reinstate the respondent and pay him back wages to the extent of 50% within a period of three months. All other benefits such as continuity of service were also extended to the respondent. 7. The High Court should not have granted 50% back wages without conducting any enquiry as to whether the respondent was otherwise employed or not. This view has been recently reiterated in the decision of this Court in G.M., Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singhl. All other benefits such as continuity of service were also extended to the respondent. 7. The High Court should not have granted 50% back wages without conducting any enquiry as to whether the respondent was otherwise employed or not. This view has been recently reiterated in the decision of this Court in G.M., Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singhl. However, since the matter has been pending for a long time we do not remand the matter back to the Labour Court, as the High Court should have done, but in the interest of justice we pass the following order; the respondent will be reinstated together with continuity of service, etc. The back wages will be calculated with effect from the date of the decision of the High Court for the reasons for which Respondent I would have been employed. Such reinstatement and payment shall be made within a period of four weeks from date. 8. The appeal is all owed but without any order as to costs.