Judgment Ashok Parihar, J.-The matter is disposed of finally as prayed by Counsel for the parties. Petitioner has challenged the award dated 02.01.2002 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, by which while holding the termination of services of respondent No. 1-the concerned workman as illegal and unjustified, the concerned workman has been ordered to be reinstated with full back-wages and all consequential benefits. 2. The facts as has come on record are that the concerned workman was appointed on daily wages basis as a Conductor on 210.1986. The services of the concerned workman were terminated vide order dated 11.02.1987 on the ground of unsatisfactory work. Since a general reference of demands was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur in regard to employees of the petitioners Corporation, a complaint under Section 33-A was filed by the concerned workman before the Tribunal. There is no dispute that before termination of service of the concerned workman neither any charge-sheet was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the concerned workman, though certain allegations were made by the petitioner in their reply before the Tribunal. However, no permission was sought to prove the allegations before the Tribunal. It was only at the time of final hearing that alternative prayer was made by the Counsel for the petitioner- Corporation to prove the allegations against the concerned workman. The prayers so made by the petitioner-Corporation at such belated stage were rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of inordinate delay. In absence of any evidence against the concerned workman the award as referred above was passed by the Tribunal accordingly. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners while submitting that the Tribunal should have granted permission to the petitioners Corporation to prove the charges against the concerned workman. Learned Counsel for the respondent workman while relying on a Judgment of Larger Bench of Supreme Court in case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lakshmidev, Amma, 2001 (5) SCC433, submitted that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the prayer made at the last stage of the trial. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the Judgment s referred at the Bar. 5. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the Judgment s referred at the Bar. 5. In view of a bare reading of the termination order as also the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner Corporation before the Tribunal, it cannot be said that termination in the present matter was discharge simplicitor without casting any stigma on the concerned workman. So far as stage at which the permission should have been sought by the employer to prove the charges before the Tribunal itself is concerned, the Supreme Court in case of Karnataka State Raod Transport Corporation (Supra) has categorically held that in all eventualities the permission should have been sought by the employer at the very initial stage. The intention of the employer is relevant and then certainly discretion is left with the Tribunal to either grant permission for not to grant permission considering the facts and circumstances of each case. 6. In the present case admittedly no permission, whatsoever was sought till the proceedings reached the final stage of arguments, under the circumstances I find no error or illegality in the discretion used by the Tribunal in rejecting the prayers made by the petitioner-Corporation, more so, in view of Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Supra). Thus, in absence of any evidence whatsoever to prove the allegations against the concerned workman, the termination of his services could not be held to be legal and justified. However, looking to the nature and duration of employment wherein the concerned workman had put in only about 4 months service as daily rated employee, I find no justification whatsoever for allowing any back wages in the present case. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The award dated 02.01.2002 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the concerned workman shall be entitled for the reinstatement on same terms and conditions he was employed at the time of his termination from the date of award i.e. 02.01.2002 only. However, he will not be entitled for any benefits prior to the above date. The award dated 02.01.2002 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the concerned workman shall be entitled for the reinstatement on same terms and conditions he was employed at the time of his termination from the date of award i.e. 02.01.2002 only. However, he will not be entitled for any benefits prior to the above date. Since the termination relates to the year 1987, in the interest of justice I deem it proper to direct the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the concerned workman within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and make the payment of arrears as referred above within 30 days thereafter.