TARUN AGARWALA, J. ( 1 ) LIST has been revised. Learned Counsel for the respondents is not present. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the award of the labour Court, by which respondent workman has been reinstated with back-wages with continuity of service. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the workman and based on tho interim order, the workman was ro-engaged and continue to work till he retired on 5. 8,2004. It has also como on record that the petitioner-company has closed down irrevocably and is not functioning. ( 3 ) CONSEQUENTLY, in view of the retirement of the workman, the question of back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement which is about 3 years and 6 months remains to be adjudicated. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has conceded that since the petitioner-company has closed down therefore full back-wages should not be ordered to be paid as it would become onerous and that lesser back-wages could be awarded. ( 5 ) IN my opinion, since the learned Counsel for the respondent-workman is not present, the employers are directed to pay 50% of back-wages within three months from today. The writ petition is allowed and the award of the labour Court is modified to this effect. Petition Allowed. .