1. This writ application is directed against the award dated 30.7.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 2/87 by which the earlier award passed by the Labour Court was modified so far as the punishment imposed on the workman is concerned. 2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the instant writ application are that the respondent No. 2 herein, while working as Stores Clerk in the Deomollie Tea Estate represented by the writ petitioner, was placed under suspension by an order dated 13.2.1985. Thereafter, alleging financial irregularities and pecuniary loss to the Management to the tune of Rs. 35,635.93 and Rs. 26,884,66 during the period from 1982 to 1984 by means of dishonest and fraudulent activities, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner. The charge sheet was issued on 13.2.1985 itself and the respondent No. 2/Workman replied to the show cause notice. The Management being not satisfied with the reply furnished by the workman decided to hold a domestic enquiry. On conclusion of the enquiry, the workman was found to be guilty of the charge and he was dismissed from service. 4. A dispute was raised in respect of such dismissal of the workman and the appropriate Government by Notification dated 31.1.87 referred the dispute raised by the workman for adjudication by the Labour Court, Assam at Dibrugarh. A Reference Case being No. 2/87 was registered. Upon issuance of notice, the parties appeared before the Labour Court by filing their respective written statements. 5. The labour court upon adjudication of the matter found the domestic enquiry to be vitiated by procedural irregularities and accordingly allowed to adduce evidence on merit as well as on the domestic enquiry. Upon such fresh adjudication of the matter on the basis of the evidence on record, the labour court interfered with the order of dismissal by its award dated 28.6.1993. By the said award, the workman was ordered to be demoted to the corresponding lower grade (Grade-III) with further direction to reinstate him as Assistant Stores Clerk. By the said award, the Management was granted the liberty to appoint him in the post of typist clerk in which post he was initially appointed under the Management. Monthly deduction of Rs. 400 from the salary for 10 years or till his superannuation which ever is earlier was also provided. By the said award, the Management was granted the liberty to appoint him in the post of typist clerk in which post he was initially appointed under the Management. Monthly deduction of Rs. 400 from the salary for 10 years or till his superannuation which ever is earlier was also provided. Such recovery was ordered to be made against the pecuniary loss caused to the Management. The earlier order of dismissal was modified by the labour court in exercise of its power conferred under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. Pursuant to the said award of the labour court, the Management by its letter dated 20.10.1993 reinstated the petitioner in service as typist clerk in Grade-III with immediate effect. In the letter of appointment/reinstatement the recovery to be made from the salary of the workman @ Rs. 400 per month was also indicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the bar that there is no dispute that pursuant to the said letter dated 20.10.1993, the workman did not join the post in which he was reinstated, i.e., demoted post. It is also on record that the workman never joined the post and eventually stood retired from service in April 2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award by which the punishment of dismissal was imposed, the workman and for that matter the respondent herein preferred a writ petition which was numbered and registered as Civil Rule No. 3364/1993. Although the writ petition was admitted but no interim order was passed. Thus naturally the workman ought to have joined the reverted post to which was appointed by order dated 20.10.1993. The petition was finally disposed of by judgment and order dated 14.8.1997. By the said judgment and order although the award on merit was not interfered with, but in respect of the punishment, the matter was remanded back to the labour court for a decision afresh. It was provided in the order of remand that the labour court should apply its mind afresh regarding the punishment imposed on the workman in exercise of power under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. It was provided in the order of remand that the labour court should apply its mind afresh regarding the punishment imposed on the workman in exercise of power under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. After the aforesaid order of remand passed by this court by judgment and order dated 14.8.1997 in Civil Rule No. 3364/1993, the labour court by the impugned award dated 30.7.1998 decided the matter of punishment afresh; legality and validity of which is under challenge in this writ petition. The labour court by the impugned order dated 30.7.1998 modified the earlier award by which the workman was reverted to the lower post of typist clerk. By such modification, the labour court by the impugned award has interfered with the punishment substituting the same with that warning. The earlier punishment of reduction in rank has been interfered with substituting the same with punishment of warning only. As against the earlier award of the labour court, by which the workman was not provided with any back wages, the labour court in the modified impugned award dated 30.7.1998 provided for full back wages to the workman. However, as regards the loss suffered by the Management, an amount of Rs. 35,623.93 was ordered to be deducted from the back wages. 9. It is the legality and validity of the aforesaid impugned award dated 30.7.1998 which is under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Ajitsaria, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the respondents and for that matter the workman. Ms. M. Hazariika, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the workman although was reinstated in service by letter dated 20.10.1993 never joined in his post to which he was reinstated, there is no question for payment of any back wages to the workman. She further submits that although the matter relating to punishment was ordered to be decided afresh by this court, the labour court by its award dated 30.7.1998 mechanically passed the award for payment of back wages and interfered with the earlier award. She submits that in fact by the impugned award dated 30.7.1998, the workman has not been imposed with any penalty. As regards the recovery of Rs. She submits that in fact by the impugned award dated 30.7.1998, the workman has not been imposed with any penalty. As regards the recovery of Rs. 35,623.99, she submits that such recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Management cannot be said to be a punishment. 10. Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, countering the above argument made by Ms. Hazarika, submits that the labour court having passed the award dated 30.7.1998 in exercise of its power under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this court will be reluctant to interfere with the same. Tracing back the history of the amendment brought to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1971 and referring to the object and reasons of such amendment, he submits that the labour court passed the impugned award dated 30.7.1998 within competence and jurisdiction and in that view of the matter this court is not entitled to interfere with the same under article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that under the given facts and circumstances, the labour court rightly awarded the back wages to the workman. He finally submits that the recovery itself being a punishment coupled with another punishment of warning, which was passed on the basis of the observation of this court in the earlier writ petition, it can be said to be not a case of punishment at all. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. There is no dispute that the workman was held to be guilty of the misconduct whatever might be the gravity of the same. Such a position has attained its finality there being no challenge to the same. Even in the earlier writ petition, i.e., Civil Rule No. 3364/93, this court by judgment and order dated 14.8.1997 upheld the earlier award passed by the labour court dated 28.6.1993 in Reference Case No. 2/87. It was only in respect of punishment that was awarded to the petitioner, the matter was remanded back to the labour court for a fresh decision by applying its mind In exercise of the power under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was only in respect of punishment that was awarded to the petitioner, the matter was remanded back to the labour court for a fresh decision by applying its mind In exercise of the power under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Impugned award dated 30.7.1998 passed by the labour court pursuant to such order of this court is quoted below: "Perused the order passed by hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 3364/03 dated 14.8.1997. In the said order hon'ble High Court observed that the punishment imposed by the trial court is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Regarding the imposition of punishment, the matter has been sent back to the trial court with a direction that trial court shall apply the mind afresh regarding the punishment imposed on the workman in exercise of power under section 11A of the -I.D. Act. Learned counsel for the management submitted that the management suffered loss of Rs. 35,623.93 for the acts of omissions and commissions of the concerned workman. Learned counsel for workman by citing the case 1996 (11) GLT 607 submitted that ordinarily when an order of termination or dismissal is set aside by court or Tribunal, the relief of back wages is granted. Keeping in view of the whole facts of the case, the workman is reinstated with warning to his original post from which he was removed with full back wages. The sum of Rs. 35,623.93 shall be deducted from his back wages and shall be retained by the management. With this modification of punishment award is passed. Inform the Government accordingly." 12. On a plain reading of the award which is under challenge, same will go to show that the labour court did not apply its mind towards passing the modified award. It simply recorded the submissions made on behalf of the Management as regards the loss sustained by it. It also recorded the submissions made on behalf of the workman in respect of a decision of this court reported in 1996 (2) GLT 607 and abruptly ordered for reinstatement in the original post from which the workman was removed with full back wages. As regard's the order of deduction of the amount of Rs. 35,623,99 from such back wages, same was on account of the pecuniary loss caused to the Management. 13. As regard's the order of deduction of the amount of Rs. 35,623,99 from such back wages, same was on account of the pecuniary loss caused to the Management. 13. The workman was held to be guilty of the charge and the award passed on that basis was not interfered with by this court while passing the judgment and order dated 14.8.1997 in Civil Rule No. 3364/93. By the earlier award, the workman was reduced in rank without any back wages. The recovery in respect of the pecuniary loss caused to the Management was also allowed. However, after remand of the matter as per the order of this court, the impugned award was passed virtually not imposing any penalty on the workman. It is not the intention of this court towards remanding back for a fresh decision regarding imposition of lesser punishment. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the workman fairly submits that non-payment of back wages is not a prescribed punishment. If that be so, the earlier award providing non-payment of back wages to the workman cannot be said to be a punishment. In the Impugned award, .the labour court has provided full back wages to the workman without considering the fact that the workman never joined in the reinstated post although he was reinstated by letter dated 20.10.1993 pursuant to the earlier award passed by the labour court. 14. As regards the plea that there being a punishment by virtue of the order of recovery of Rs. 35,623.99 from the back wages of the workman I am of the considered opinion that such recovery cannot be said to be a punishment. The amount of Rs. 35,623.99 has been ordered to be recovered and the said amount is the pecuniary loss sustained by the Management for dishonest and fraudulent activities of the workman. Even in the case of recovery on account of the pecuniary loss caused to the employer as one of the punishment, the employer is entitled to impose punishment other than recovery for the misconduct of the employee. The order of recovery on account of pecuniary loss and the order of punishment on account of misconduct can not be said to be one and the same. The order of recovery on account of pecuniary loss and the order of punishment on account of misconduct can not be said to be one and the same. On account of misconduct, a punishment will have to be naturally imposed and the order for recovery cannot be said to be said to be a punishment for the misconduct while the recovery is for the pecuniary loss, the punishment is for the misconduct. 15. In the instant case whatever might be the gravity of the offence committed by the workman, labour court found the workman guilty of the charge and such finding was not interfered with by this court in the aforesaid earlier judgment and order. It is only in respect of the punishment, the matter was remanded back to the labour court. However, labour court without considering the attending circumstances as required under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 simply referred the judgment and order of this court and passed the impugned award providing full back wages to the petitioner with reinstatement in service in the original post. It appears that the labour court lost sight of the fact that in spite of the Order of reinstatement in the reverted post by order dated 20.10.1993, the workman never joined the post and remained away from his duty. Now it is on record that the workman retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from April 2004. Thus from the date of reinstatement in the reverted post by order dated 20.10.1993 to April 2004 he remained away from his duty and thus it will be wholly improper to pay him full back wages for the said period. 16. It was open for the workman to join the reverted post pursuant to the order of reinstatement dated 20.10.1993 but he did not do so. As noticed above, in the earlier writ petition, there was no interim order passed in favour of the workman. Thus it was incumbent on the part of workman to join the reverted post for which the earlier award was passed. 17. Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel for the petitioner Submits that even if the impugned award so far as it relates to reinstatement in the original post prevails no material benefit will accrue to the workman since he has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in April 2004. 17. Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel for the petitioner Submits that even if the impugned award so far as it relates to reinstatement in the original post prevails no material benefit will accrue to the workman since he has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in April 2004. By the order of remand passed by this court, punishment awarded to the workman was to be reconsidered. In view of the fact that virtually there is no punishment awarded to the petitioner by the impugned award dated 30.7.1998. I am of the considered opinion that some punishment necessarily will have to be imposed on the workman even after the order of reinstatement passed by the labour court. Since it has been held that the recovery for the pecuniary loss caused to the Management cannot be said to be a punishment and the warning awarded by the impugned award is not a punishment, the workman cannot absolve himself from the liability of appropriate punishment for the misconduct found proved against him. 18. The matter is now 19 years old. No useful purpose will be served if the matter is once again remanded back to the labour court for a fresh decision as regards to the punishment awarded to the workman. Having regard the fact and circumstances involved in the case, while not a interfering with the award passed by the labour court as regards the reinstatement in the original post, the punishment of stoppage of 5 increments is imposed on the workman with cumulative effect. As regards the back wages, it has already been held that the workman will not be entitled to the same. The principles of "no work no pay will also come into operation when it is an admitted fact that the petitioner even after the order of reinstatement did not join the post and remained away from duty for all the years, till he stood retired from service in April 2004 on attaining the age of superannuation. 19. It is on record that pursuant to the interim order passed for payment of back wages, 50% of the same was paid to the petitioner for the period 1985-1993. It is here by provided that the petitioner will not be entitled to any further back wages for the said period. 20. Writ petition is answered in the above manner and stands disposed of. It is here by provided that the petitioner will not be entitled to any further back wages for the said period. 20. Writ petition is answered in the above manner and stands disposed of. There shall, be no order as to costs.