JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel Mr. Suresh Vyas is appearing for respondent No. 1 workman. Leave to delete the names of respondents No. 2 and 3 from the array of respondents. Admit. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur dated 02.06.2005, by which the Labour Court has passed the order of reinstatement in favour of the respondent-workman with 50% back wages. 3. The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute on the ground that his services were wrongly terminated without following the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act even though he had served for more than 240 days. The respondent-workman was appointed as Handpump Mistry and it is his case that he had served between 01.06.1995 and 31.01.1996 and he used to sign the muster roll regularly. The said muster roll was also signed by the Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch. According to the respondent-workman, even though he was serving at the relevant time, he was not paid salary and subsequently, his services were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also the case of the respondent-workman that before termination, he had worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year and after terminating his services, the department appointed other Handpump Mistry. The aforesaid industrial dispute was decided by the concerned Labour Court. In para 5 of the impugned award, the Labour Court has found that even though 11 opportunities were given to the department to produce their evidence, but the department has not availed the same and the department has not led any evidence nor even examined any witnesses. A categorical finding has been i given in para 5 of the impugned award in this behalf. The Labour Court, thereafter, considered the evidence produced by the workman and came to the conclusion that before termination, no notice was given to the concerned workman and that he has served for more than 240 days in the previous year. The said findings have been given by the Labour Court in para 9 and 10 of the impugned award. 4. The said findings have been given by the Labour Court in para 9 and 10 of the impugned award. 4. Considering the reasoning given by the Labour Court, in my view, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has committed any apparent error which is required to be corrected by this court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The officers of the department 5 remained absolutely inactive and negligent in not attending the proceedings before the Labour Court. It is also required to be noted that subsequently when the respondent-workman approached the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, the department even released his salary and, therefore, the department was aware about such appointment, yet no care was taken by the department by producing appropriate evidence before the Labour Court or by examining witnesses. This court cannot decide the matter like first appeal as powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are restrictive powers. When the Labour Court has considered the matter by examining evidence on record and 5 when the petitioner-department has not shown any inclination to lead any evidence before the Labour Court, the award of the Labour Court cannot be disturbed unless the petitioner is in a position to point out that the Labour Court has committed any apparent error or the impugned order suffers from any illegality. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that even though the Labour Court has awarded 50% back wages, the court may suitably modify the same and decide the question about payment of back wages appropriately. 6. It is required to be noted that the order of the Labour Court was passed as back as on 02.06.2005 and the said order has not been stayed nor even the department has even asked for any interim relief for all this period though the matter is pending since more than 2 years and even though there is no interim relief in favour of the department, they on their own have not obeyed the award of the Labour Court. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the award of the Labour Court in granting 50% back wages is modified to 25%. Rest of the award of the Labour Court is confirmed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the award of the Labour Court in granting 50% back wages is modified to 25%. Rest of the award of the Labour Court is confirmed. It will be open for department to take appropriate proceedings against the concerned officer who has been negligent in not attending the proceedings before the Labour Court and who has not performed his duties properly in defending the case before the Labour Court and not even cared to remain present and examine the witnesses. 7. Subject to what is stated above, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent of modification in the payment of back wages.Writ petition Party Allowed. *******