Judgment K.KANNAN, J. 1. The writ petition challenges the award passed by the Labour Court, Rohtak directing reinstatement of the workmen with 50% back wages. 2. The matter of reference before the Labour Court was in respect of about 18 workmen, who complained of having been prevented from resuming duty and they had been treated as terminated from service and the question sent for adjudication was whether the services of the workmen named in 18 individual references had been terminated or had the workmen abandoned services by absenting wilfully. 3. The point of dispute was that the workmen indulged in strike between January 16, 1989 to January 18, 1989 and when they presented themselves for resumption of work, the management insisted on giving undertaking of good conduct, which the workmen refused ana even without any written communication specifically terminating the services, the workmen were treated as having been- terminated by reference to the Standing Orders that wilful absence for a period of 10 days beyond the leave period would be constituted as voluntary abandonment of duty. The Labour Court found that the management had not specifically passed any orders terminating their services but held that undertaking required of the workmen was unjustified and they had not been permitted to rejoin duty in spite of their willingness, which would amount to unlawful termination. The Labour Court took note of the circumstances under which the stand-off between the management and the workmen took place and awarded, while ordering reinstatement, only to 50% back wages. 4. The award of the labour Court was challenged among other grounds that the strike itself was unjustified and illegal having been resorted to by the workmen during the subsistence of a settlement that had been brought about between the management and the workmen under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The further contention was that insistence of the management to secure an undertaking from the workman could not be said to be unfair labour practice or illegal, in view of the conduct of the workmen who had resorted to a strike in spite of the subsistence of a settlement. They were, therefore, justified in expecting an undertaking to be given and the failure of the workmen to turn up for duty after such undertaking ought not to be taken as termination of service by the management. They were, therefore, justified in expecting an undertaking to be given and the failure of the workmen to turn up for duty after such undertaking ought not to be taken as termination of service by the management. The result of the absence of the workmen for a period of more than 10 days following the strike, which according to the management was illegal, entailed automatic abandonment of service in view of the Standing Orders that provided for the names being struck off, if a workman absented himself without taking prior sanction of leave for 8 days. Shri Mutneja, learned counsel for the Management further argued that the Management did not actually press for such a hard course and in fact offered at the time of conciliation proceedings to take back all the workmen to join back but only the workmen did not join the factory. The Labour Courts award was also challenged as being inconsistent in holding at one place that the management had not passed any order of termination of service but at the same time directing reinstatement of workmen when the finding was that they had not been terminated. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the workmen would join issues on the illegality of the strike as contended by the management by stating that the settlement had been only between the Management of Bansal Paper Mill Workers Union. The recitals of the settlement as brought out on March 4, 1987 through Annexure P-l state even in the preamble that it was brought out only between the management of Shri Krishna Paper Mills Limited (Coating Division) and the workmen of Bansal Paper, Mill Workers Union. But the name Bansal Paper Mills Workers Union was even admitted by the counsel for the workmen that before the mill was taken over by Shri Krishna Paper Mills Ltd., it carried the name of the previous company and continued as such even after the take over. The difference in name is therefore inconsequential. If there was a settlement that was current, then clearly the strike was illegal. The crucial issue is whether they were liable for termination from service on account of their participation in the illegal strike and by their insistence that they would not give the undertaking of good conduct for resumption of work. 6. If there was a settlement that was current, then clearly the strike was illegal. The crucial issue is whether they were liable for termination from service on account of their participation in the illegal strike and by their insistence that they would not give the undertaking of good conduct for resumption of work. 6. If the strike was illegal, it was perhaps justified that the management obtained some measure of assurance of good conduct. This point could also be conceded in favour of the management in order to test it by an adjudication that is still crucial whether termination was justified. Learned counsel appearing for the management pointed out in the course of his argument that it was not merely a case of the workman participating in an illegal strike but also their deliberate abstention inspite of clear offer by the management to take them back. He would urge that even when a demand notice had been issued by the workman after the strike period in the proceedings before the Conciliation Officer, the management had not relied on the provisions of the Standing Order that provided for automatic termination of service after the expiry of the leave period, they were willing to offer employment to all the persons who had participated in the strike. Even out of nearly 23 persons, who had not joined and issued demand notices, 5 of them had rejoined service but only 18 of them were still persisting without accepting the offer of the management and went to trial before the Labour Court. 7. The Labour Court in its award has reported that it had examined all the records and found that the Labour Inspector had visited the premises during the conciliation to ascertain at the gate whether the workmen were deliberately not allowed to join duty in spite of the offer by the management to take them back. He had observed that the offer of the workmen to rejoin duty was accepted by the management but they also insisted on undertaking which undertaking the workmen were not prepared to give and therefore, they were not able to rejoin duty. He had observed that the offer of the workmen to rejoin duty was accepted by the management but they also insisted on undertaking which undertaking the workmen were not prepared to give and therefore, they were not able to rejoin duty. Learned counsel referred to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala and Others (1990) 4 SCC 744: 1990-II-LLJ-39, that held the deliberate abstention from work through strike or go slow or any other method legitimate or illegitimate, payment of back wages may not be proper and to that extent alone the award requires to be set aside. The workmen shall be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of wages but without back wages. The counsel for the workmen states that all the workmen contesting the case shall give unconditional apology and resume work. The statement of the counsel is recorded and the workmen shall give such an unconditional apology as demanded by the management before claiming resumption of duty. 8. Even during the pendency of the writ petition, there had been a direction by this Court for payment of the dues to the workmen under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. There had been a further direction that arrears of pay must be paid within two months from the date when the copy of the order was furnished. For non-compliance of the direction of this Court, there is also an independent petition for contempt in C.O.C.P. No. 223/2003. From the records, it is only seen that it remained unsatisfied. So much for the conduct of the management. In view of the decision that I have taken affirming the order of the Labour Court, I do not want to persist it further by issuance any direction for contempt. The workmen are entitled to obtain what was assured as last drawn pay upto the actual date of reinstatement. 9. Contempt petition is dismissed. 10. The writ petition is dismissed with the modification of the award of the Labour Court to the extent indicated above. No costs.