JUDGMENT 1. - Dispute in regard to termination of services of respondent No. 2, the concerned workman, had been referred by the State Government to the Labour , Kota vide notification dated 30.10.1982. The Labour vide interim order dated 8.12.1983 held that domestic inquiry conducted by the petitioner against the concerned workman was fair and proper. However, on merits it has been held that findings of the inquiry officer were perverse and no charge could be proved against the concerned workman. Thus, while holding the termination of services of the concerned workman to be illegal and unjustified, the concerned workman was ordered to be reinstated with full backwages vide award dated 23.4.1984. The above award has been challenged by the petitioner before this in the present writ petition. 2. Initially, the writ petition was dismissed by this vide order dated 21.12.1993 upholding the directions given by the Labour .However, on a further appeal filed by the petitioner before the Division Bench, the matter has been remanded back to this by the Division Bench vide order dated 23.1.2007. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 272/95 has been disposed of by the Division Bench in the following terms : "(i) Finding of learned Single Judge that removal of respondent workman was illegal and unjustified, is confirmed. (ii) In view of closure of industry in 1997 and subsequent Tripartite Agreement, the observations made in the impugned judgment in regard to reinstatement and back wages are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge with the request to expeditiously decide this issue afresh. The employer shall file Tripartite Agreement along with the affidavit of concerned person with advance copy of learned counsel for the workman, who shall be at liberty to file counter affidavit. The parties shall appear before learned Single Judge for seeking further directions in the matter on February 19, 2007. There shall be no order as to costs." 3. Since earlier findings of this on the legality of termination has already been upheld by the Division Bench, the only question now remains to be decided is in regard to the relief to be given to the concerned workman. 4. Mr. N.K. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the concerned workman had worked only for a limited period on probation, however, his services were terminated on the ground of misconduct. 4. Mr. N.K. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the concerned workman had worked only for a limited period on probation, however, his services were terminated on the ground of misconduct. It has further been submitted that the concerned workman has already been paid more than Rs. 1 Lac during pendency of the litigation before this , as such, the same should have been treated as sufficient compensation in lieu of reinstatement. It has also been submitted and as also observed by the Division Bench that in view of tripartite agreement between two companies as also association of staff, the relief for reinstatement and backwages could not be justified. 5. Having considered submissions of the counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record including the award, the earlier 45 order passed by this as also judgment of the Division Bench as referred above and further the tripartite agreement entered into between the parties on 22.10.2002. 6. Termination of services of the concerned workman has been held to be illegal and unjustified not only by the Labour but, the findings of the Labour have bone upheld upto the Division Bench also. The petitioner has not been able to place any material on record to show that the concerned workman had been gainfully employed at any stage of the proceedings either before the Labour or this . The award has been passed on 23.4.1984. The writ petition filed by the petitioner and earlier been dismissed by this on 21.12.1993 and the Division Bench decided s the matter on 23.1.2007. Mere pendency of litigation before the s cannot be a ground for denying the legal benefits including backwages to the concerned workman. A bare reading of the agreement dated 22.10.2002 would show that there were certain terms and conditions in regard to absorption of the workers working in erstwhile company. In case some workers could not be absorbed or taken back on duty by the successor company M/s. Arfat Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., there are certain terms as to how the compensation or other benefits would be given to such workers as per terms and conditions of the agreement. A cut-off date has also been fixed for calculating the legal dues and same has been mentioned as 11.9.1997. 7. A cut-off date has also been fixed for calculating the legal dues and same has been mentioned as 11.9.1997. 7. Having considered entire facts and circumstances since termination has been held to be illegal and unjustified, the concerned workman is held entitled for backwages upto the cut off date, i.e. 11.9.1997 fixed in the agreement referred above. After the cut-off date, the concerned workman shall be entitled for the benefits as per terms and conditions of the tripartite agreement, as referred above. Since the termination related to the year 1981 and the concerned workman had to undergo agony and trauma of litigation before this for last more than 26 years, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is now directed to make the payment to the concerned workman and pass necessary orders as per terms and conditions of the tripartite agreement dated 22.10.2002 within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to deduct the amount already paid to the concerned workman from the amount now to be paid as ordered above. 8. With the above observations and directions while modifying the impugned award passed by the Labour so far as relief to the concerned workman is concerned, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.Writ Petition Disposed of by Modifying Award as above. *******