Judgment The writ petition is admitted. 2. This writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 25-2-1995, whereby the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has held that the termination of services of the workman from 9-5-1989 was not legal and it was ordered that the workman be reverted to some lower grade post from that date. 3. Relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent no. 2 was working as yard supervisor in the establishment of the petitioner since 1981. According to the workman, on 13-3-1989, he was charge-sheeted, but there was no specific charge in the charge-sheet and ultimately he was removed from service w.e.f. 9-5-1989 by the employer. Consequently, an industrial dispute was raised for adjudication by the Labour Court. 4. The workman has contended that he was removed from service in an arbitrary manner and against the principle of natural justice without conducting a proper and fair enquiry. He prayed that he be reinstated in service with full back wages. The employer-petitioner filed its written submission and admitted the employment of the workman as Cane-yard Supervisor. He was charge-sheeted and accordingly he was placed under suspension. After domestic enquiry, the workman was removed from service w.e.f. 9-5-1989. 5. The learned Labour Court after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer had rightly found the charge of misconduct was proved against the workman. The Labour Court on the quantum of punishment took the view that the penalty from removal from service was a major punishment, therefore, the punishment was reduced to reversion to lower grade vide order dated 25-2-1995. 6. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the Labour Court has held in the impugned award that the inference of the enquiry officer that the charge against the workman is proved was proper. The workman has acquiesced to this finding of the Labour Court because the workman-respondent no.2 has not challenged this finding of the Labour Court dated 25-2-1995 before this Court by separate writ petition in particular and even the order of reversion to lower grade post. It thus follows that the workman-respondent nO.2 has not assailed the adverse part of the order impugned. Moreover, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot reappreciate the evidence like a court of appeal. It thus follows that the workman-respondent nO.2 has not assailed the adverse part of the order impugned. Moreover, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot reappreciate the evidence like a court of appeal. Before this Court, only the employer-petitioner has filed the writ petition having been aggrieved by the said order. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the charge of misconduct was fully proved against the workman-respondent no.2 and the case of the workman cannot be equated with illegal terminated from service, therefore, the workman cannot be held entitled to consequential benefits as a consequence of reinstatement. It has been submitted that workman could not have been awarded back wages for the period he remained out of service. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Apex Court verdict in the case of "J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agarwal and another" [(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 651]. In paragraph 19 it has been inter alia held that "therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoid." The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above. 8. Admittedly, in the case at hand, a domestic enquiry was ordered against the workman on the charge of misconduct. It is also not disputed that the Presiding Officer Labour Court has also found that the charge of misconduct was fully proved against the workman. The Labour Court only reduced the punishment from removal of service to reversion of the workman from the date of order removal, i.e. 9-5-1989. The order has been passed by the Labour Court on February 25, 1995. The Labour Court only reduced the punishment from removal of service to reversion of the workman from the date of order removal, i.e. 9-5-1989. The order has been passed by the Labour Court on February 25, 1995. In such circumstances, in view of the law laid down in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra), it will be in the fitness of things that the workman should not be awarded back wages for the period when he had not worked, i.e. from 9-5-1989 to 25-2-1995, when the order was passed in favour of the workman by the Labour Court. 9. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. The award dated 25-2-1995 passed by the Labour Court deserves to be modified to the extent that the workman-respondent nO.2 shall not be entitled to the back wages for the period 9-51989 to 25-5-1995. Rest of the order passed by the Labour Court shall remain undisturbed. 10. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 25-2-1995 is modified to the extent that as a consequence of the order passed by the Labour Court the respondent no.2 shall not be entitled to any back wages w.e.f. 9-5-1989 to the date of award, i.e. 25-21995. Rest of the order passed by the Labour Court is upheld. No order as to costs. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. All applications stand disposed of.