Judgment :- The above writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 22.09.2004, made in W.P. No.15128 of 1996, in and by which, while dismissing the writ Petition filed by the Management/Transport Corporation, the learned Judge disallowed the backwages for the period from 20.07.1994 to 21.04.1997. Aggrieved by the said direction, the second respondent therein/workman has filed this Appeal. 2. Heard Mr. S. Ayyathurai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Omprakash for R-2/Management. 3. In view of the order to be passed here-under, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to refer to all the factual details projected by both the appellant and the contesting second respondent. 4. It is seen that the order passed by the Management, dismissing the workman/appellant, was not approved by the Tribunal. On going through the materials, the learned Judge rightly accepted the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the Writ Petition. However, it was pointed out before the learned Judge that since the workman was not in service during the period from 20.07.1994 to 21.04.1997, he is not entitled to claim wages for the said period. 5. Admittedly, there was no fault on the part of the workman. In fact, on appreciation of the entire materials, the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, refused to grant approval to the order of dismissal passed by the Management. We have already observed that the said order has been confirmed by the learned single Judge. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the workman continues to be in service and there is no question of reduction or denial of backwages. Further, it is not the case of the Management that the workman concerned has been gainfully employed elsewhere during the said period. In fact, the Management has neither pleaded nor proved that the appellant/workman has been gainfully employed. On the other hand, it is the specific claim of the appellant that he had not been employed anywhere till he was reinstated on 21.04.1997. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Judge has committed an error in holding that the workman is not entitled to backwages between 20.07.1994 and 21.04.1997. 6. On the other hand, it is the specific claim of the appellant that he had not been employed anywhere till he was reinstated on 21.04.1997. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Judge has committed an error in holding that the workman is not entitled to backwages between 20.07.1994 and 21.04.1997. 6. Consequently, direction in para No.6 of the order of the learned single Judge to the effect that the workman is not entitled to backwages for the period between 20.07.1994 and 21.04.1997 is set aside and we hold that the appellant/workman in entitled to backwages for the said period. In view of the same, we permit the appellant to withdraw the amount lying in court deposit. 7. Writ Appeal is allowed to this extent. No costs. Connected W.A.M.Ps. are closed.