JUDGMENT Per M. M. DAS, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnt counsel for the workman - opposite party No. 1. This writ application has been filed by the Management, Food Corporation of India, challenging the award dated February 22, 1999 vide Annexure 1. The workman - opposite party No. 1 was being engaged by the management as a Sweeper for one hour daily on payment of Rs. 50 per month. A claim was made by the Union of which, the workman - opposite party No. 1 is a member before the A.L.C. (Central) on September 18, 1990. When the conciliation proceeding was pending the workman - opposite party No. 1 was disengaged. According to the workman - opposite party No. 1, he was disengaged on October 17, 1992. But it appears that when the conciliation proceeding was continuing, it was admitted by the management that the workman - opposite party No. 1 was continuing to work as a Sweeper on November 3, 1992. Conciliation having failed, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, (Central), which has resulted in the impugned award. The reference made was as follows : "Whether the action of the management, F.C.I. Food Storage Depot, Rupsa in not regularizing the services of Sri Narayan Roul and in not paying his wages at par with the monthly rated employees of the organization rather terminating his services during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?" After the statement of claim and the written statements were filed by the workman - opposite party No. 1 and the management, the learned Tribunal on hearing the parties, by the impugned award held that the termination of service of the workman - opposite party No. 1 with effect from October 17, 1992 is non est, illegal and unjustified. The workman - opposite party No. 1 is entitled to payment of wages at the rate of Rs. 250 per month with effect from April 14, 1989 and, as such, he is entitled to the differential wages from that date and back wages from the alleged date of termination, i.e. October 17, 1992 until reinstatement. It was further directed that the workman - opposite party No. 1 should be reinstated in service. Mr. 250 per month with effect from April 14, 1989 and, as such, he is entitled to the differential wages from that date and back wages from the alleged date of termination, i.e. October 17, 1992 until reinstatement. It was further directed that the workman - opposite party No. 1 should be reinstated in service. Mr. S. K. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner - management contends that the finding of the Tribunal that the workman - opposite party No. 1 should be reinstated with payment of wages at the rate of Rs. 250 per month with effect from April 14, 1989 is contrary to law as no materials were produced before the Tribunal on the basis of which, the Tribunal could have computed the monthly wage of the workman - opposite party No. 1 to be Rs. 250 per month. He further relies upon the decision in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. and Another v. B. S. David Paul, 2006-I-LLJ-999 (SC) in support of his contention and submits that the Tribunal should not have awarded the back-wages as per the ratio of the said decision. It appears from the said decision in the case of State of Haryana and Others (supra) that the Supreme Court relying upon a previous decision in the case of State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey and Others AIR 2000 SC 3734 : (2001) 1 SCC 73 : 2000-II-LLJ-1660 held that when a reference is made to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the question not only as to whether the termination of the workman is justified or not, but to grant appropriate relief, it would consist of examination of the question whether the reinstatement should be with full or partial back-wages or none. Such a question is one of fact depending upon the evidence to be produced before the Tribunal. If after the termination of the employment, the workman is gainfully employed elsewhere, it is one of the factors to be considered in determining whether or not. Reinstatement should be with full back-wages or with continuity of employment. Such questions can be appropriately examined only in a reference. When a reference is made under Section 10 of the Act, all incidental questions arising thereto can be determined by the Tribunal. Reinstatement should be with full back-wages or with continuity of employment. Such questions can be appropriately examined only in a reference. When a reference is made under Section 10 of the Act, all incidental questions arising thereto can be determined by the Tribunal. In the present case, it appears that the Tribunal has, in fact, allowed back-wages from the date of the alleged termination of the workman - opposite party No. 1 i.e., October 17, 1992 till the date of reinstatement. The direction with regard to payment of wages at the rate of Rs. 250 per month from April 14, 1989 till October 17, 1992 is admittedly for a period when the workman - opposite party No. 1 was continuing to work. Hence, that amount cannot be treated to be a back wages. There is nothing brought before this Court to show that the workman - opposite party No. 1 was gainfully employed after October 17, 1992 for any period, i.e. after he was terminated from service. As has been laid down by the Supreme Court that grant of back wages depends on facts of each case, on considering the facts of the present case, I do not find any illegality to have been committed by the Tribunal directing payment of back-wages at the rate of Rs. 250 per month from October 17, 1992 till reinstatement of the workman - opposite party No. 1, so as to be interfered with. With regard to the findings on the other issues arrived at by the Tribunal in the impugned order, I also do not find any error apparent on the face of it or any illegality or perversity therein. In view of such conclusion, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award and as it is submitted at the Bar that the directions issued in the award have not been implemented till date, the writ petitioner - Management is directed to implement the award within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.