Judgment Tapen Sen, J. 1. The petitioner, while he was conducting a Bus on 30.4.1982 between Muktsar to Gidderbaha, was said to have been found guilty of embezzlement inasmuch as he was found to have charged the bus fare from 19 passengers without issuing any tickets to them. At the relevant time, he was being paid salary at the rate of Rs. 535/- per month. His services were terminated on 4.5.1982. 2. The Industrial Law having been set in motion by the raising of a dispute and consequential reference under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same was decided finally by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda on 15.3.1988 in Reference Case No. 51 of 1986. It is not necessary for this Court to enter into other details save and expect to notice that the Labour Court specifically held that the services of the petitioner had been terminated without a domestic enquiry and therefore, it was illegal and unjustified. He therefore, answered the Reference holding that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service. 3. However, in the matter relating to back wages, the Labour Court held that since the workman had been terminated on 4.5.1982 and since he had raised the dispute on 4.9.1985 (i.e. after a delay of 2 years and 4 months), he was therefore guilty of laches and was accordingly not entitled to back wages. 4. The aforementioned reasoning of the learned Labour Court appears to be unjust and unfair. Once the Labour Court came to the conclusion that termination was illegal, he could not have deprived the petitioner of back wages unless there was a clear evidence that during the intervening period, the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere. There is no such finding nor did the Labour Court undertake that exercise. In this context, this Court takes into consideration the Judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Vinod Krishan Sharma and Anr., 2000-III-LLJ (Suppl.) 1678 wherein, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that when termination of a workmans services was found to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman could not be denied back wages to any extent unless there was a clear evidence of gainful employment in the meantime. 5. 5. In that view of the matter, the submissions made by Mrs. Baljit K. Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, to the extent that the Award should not be interfered with inasmuch as it would amount to sitting over in appeal over a fact finding Court in a jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not accepted. As a consequence of this Order and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned Award in so far as it relates to not granting back wages to the petitioner is concerned, is set aside and the Award is modified to the extent that in addition to the relief granted by the Labour Court, Bathinda, the petitioner shall also be entitled to full back wages together with reinstatement and continuity of service as has been granted by the Labour Court, Bathinda. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, three shall be no order as to costs.