ORDER 1. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as office assistant on a pay of Rs. 3,500/- per month vide order dated 20.4.1997. On 18.2.1998 his services were terminated by the petitioner. He raised a dispute before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner which was referred for adjudication to the respondent No. 2 Labour Court. The respondent No.2 by impugned award dated 7.11.2001 set aside the termination of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner without paying retrenchment compensation, in violation of section 25 F of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (for short "ID Act") illegally terminated the services of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 set aside the order of termination and directed for reinstatement with backwages. The petitioner challenged the said award of the Labour Court in this writ petition. On 4.9.2002 this Court stayed the impugned order subject to compliance of section 17B of 10 Act. 2. During pendency or this writ petition on 1.7.2003 the respondent No. 1 submitted his resignation which was accepted by the petitioner on 25.10.2004 vide document No. 1. It is contended by the petitioner that an amount of Rs. 25.020/- was sent to the petitioner vide cheque dated 19.10.2004 towards the salary for the period from October, 2002 to June, 2003. This fact is disputed by the respondent No. 1 and contended that he never received the letter dated 25.10.2004 and cheque of Rs. 25,020/-. In respect of resignation he stated that in the compelling circumstances he had no option but to apply for resignation and further contended that the respondent No. 1 was entitled for backwages as per award dated 7.11.2001 till June. 2003 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that financial condition of the petitioner is not good and respondent No.2 committed error in awarding full backwages to the respondents and prayed that backwages be reduced to 50%. In support of the said contention learned counsel drew my attention to the decision of the apex Court in the case of M.P. Slate Electricity Hoard v. Jarina Bee [2003 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 66 = 2003 (3) MPLJ 534]. In the case of Jarina Bee (supra) the Labour Court directed for reinstatement without any backwages. The employee preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court which was allowed and it was held by the Industrial Court that when an order of dismissal was set aside entitlement for full backwages was automatic. In the case of Jarina Bee (supra) the Labour Court directed for reinstatement without any backwages. The employee preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court which was allowed and it was held by the Industrial Court that when an order of dismissal was set aside entitlement for full backwages was automatic. The said order was challenged in High Court. The High Court approved the decision of Industrial Court by holding that award of back wages was the natural consequence. An appeal was filed before the apex Court who held that High Court committed an error in holding that the ward of full back wages was the natural consequence. In the case of P.G.I. of Medical Education and Research v. Raj Kumar [ (2001) 2 SCC 54 ] the apex Court observe that payment of backwagcs having a discretionary element involved in it has to be dealt with, in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case and no strait-jacket formula to be evolved, though, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of backwages in its entirety. In the case of Management of Madhurantakam Co-op. Suger Mills Ltd. Vs. S. Viswanathan [ (2005) 3 SCC 193 ], the apex Court held that due to employer undergoing financial crisis reduced the full backwages awarded by the Labour Court be reduced to 50% per cent without disturbing the retiral benefits accruing due to award of reinstatement. The relevant para of the judgment is par 19 which reads as under: "We have anxiously considered the arguments addressed by both sides in regard to the quantum of backwages to be paid to the workman. It is an undisputed fact that the workman had since attained the age of superannuation and the question of reinstatement does not arise. Because of the award, the respondent workman will be entitled to his retiral benefits like gratuity. etc. and accepting the statement of the learned senior counsel for the appellant Mills that it is undergoing a financial crisis, on the facts of this case we think it appropriate that the full back wages granted by the Labour Court be reduced to 50% of the back wages. etc. and accepting the statement of the learned senior counsel for the appellant Mills that it is undergoing a financial crisis, on the facts of this case we think it appropriate that the full back wages granted by the Labour Court be reduced to 50% of the back wages. In addition the respondent workman will also be entitled to all other retiral benefits as if he was in service throughout the period when his services were discharged." In the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591 ], the apex Court in the absence of a clear finding that the employee was not gainfully employed during the relevant period, se aside the order of the High Court directing payment of entire back salary and substituted it by payment of a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- an held that an order for payment of backwages should not be passed in mechanical manner but a host of factors are to be taken into consideration before passing any order for award of backwages. Learned counsel for petitioner relying on the above three decisions contended that due to financial crisis petitioner is ready to pay 50% backwages instead of full backwages. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that respondent No. 1 was not gainfully employed during the period of termination which he duly proved before the Labour Court by adducing his evidence on 12.4.2001. The respondent No.1 in his cross-examination before the Labour Court very specifically admitted that after termination he had not worked and he was unemployed during the period of termination. The respondent No. 2/Labour Court after considering the said evidence came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 was not gainfully employed during the pendency of termination and labour C9urt relying on the above evidence gave a finding in para 7 of the impugned award and directed for reinstatement with full backwages. The petitioner in their reply before the Labour Court never stated that due to financial crisis services of the petitioner were terminated nor in their writ petition any averments was made regarding financial condition of the petitioner and during the course of arguments orally raised this objection which cannot be accepted. The petitioner in their reply before the Labour Court never stated that due to financial crisis services of the petitioner were terminated nor in their writ petition any averments was made regarding financial condition of the petitioner and during the course of arguments orally raised this objection which cannot be accepted. Normally, the Labour Court is the final Court of fact in these types of disputes, but if a finding of fact is perverse or if the same b not based on legal evidence then this Court in exercising of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution can go into the question of fact decided by the Labour Court. In the instant case, there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the respondent No.2 and therefore no interference is warranted in exercise of supervisory power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is not disputed by the parties that the respondent No.1 applied for his resignation on 1.7.2003 which was accepted by order dated 25.10.2004. and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled only for backwages for the period from the date of his termination till 30.6.2003, as per award dated 7.1.2003 (Annexure P-5). If any amount has been paid pursuance to the directions given by this Court or during the pendency of writ petition the same shall be adjusted. The respondent No. 1 is free to recover the amount of backwages in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observation the petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.