JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for BISCOMAUN. 2. Petitioners husband was initally a night guard in the service of Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Limited (in short BISCOMAUN) and as appears from the judgment and order dated 9th May, 1994 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, petitioners husband was initially appointed in the year 1968 and subsequently he received some promotions and was working as Assistant District Manager in selection grade since 1.4.1981. His service was terminated by order dated 29.10.1988 which was challenged by him through a complaint under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953. That case was allowed by the judgment and order noticed above and it was held that the employee was entitled of his reinstatement with full back wages. 3. Petitioner is wife of the said employee Sigashan Pandit. She has claimed that her husband was unnecessarily implicated in a criminal case. He approached the authorities of BISCOMAUN for reinstatement but without success although he was even acquitted in the criminal case in j the year 1977 and ultimately died on 15.5.2003. This writ petition was filed on 4.7.2007 claiming arrears of salary from 4.10.1988 till the date of death i.e. 15.5.2003. 4. In the counter-affidavit the BISCOMAUN has taken a stand that after filing of the writ petition a decision in respect of claim of the petitioner has been taken through an order dated 23.10.2008 which is Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. That order shows that petitioners husband has been treated to be in service from 29.10.1988 till the date of the judgment i.e. 9.5.1994 and on that basis his dues have been calculated and decided to be paid after deducting an amount of Rs. 31,980/- which is said to be an amount which was subject matter of the defalcation in the crirqinal case. 5. On behalf of petitioner it has rightly been submitted that back wages were required to be paid by the BISCOMAUN from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement and since petitioners husband was not reinstated in spite of his approaching the authorities of the BISCOMAUN, he is entitled to get back wages from the date of dismissal i.e. 29.10.1988 till his death on 15.5.2003. Petitioner is not aware as to on what date her husband would have superannuated from service. Petitioner is not aware as to on what date her husband would have superannuated from service. It has been accepted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if petitioners husband was to superannuate earlier to 15.5.2003 then the back wages shall be from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation only. 6. Learned counsel for the BISCOMAUN failed to satisfy this court that there could be any legal basis for calculating the back wages only till the date of judgment of the Labour Court dated 9.5.1994. In such circumstances, the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are found to be reasonable and fit to be accepted. The further submission on behalf of petitioner that Rs. 31,980/ - cannot be deducted from the petitioner in absence of any lawful determination by any authority that such amount was payable by the husband of the petitioner to BISCOMAUN has also to be accepted becasue there was no departmental proceeding holding the petitioner liable for that amount and admittedly the criminal case lodged by the BISCOMAUN against the husband of the petitioner has also ended in acquittal. 7. As a result, the decision taken by. the respondent-BISCOMAUN as contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit is found to be not in accordance with law. Hence, the respondent authorities are directed to take a decision in respect of claim of petitioner and calculate the lawful dues payable to husband of the petitioner by treating him in service from 29.10.1988 till the date of his superannuation or till 15.5.2003 when he died, whichever is earlier. Such decision shall also keep in view the finding given above that BISCOMAUN, cannot realize Rs. 31,980/- from the husband of the petitioner in absence of any lawful determination by any competent authority that such amount was payable by the husband of the petitioner to the BISCOMAUN. 8. A fresh order must be passed by the BISCOMAUN and the entire lawful dues found payable to the petitioner as arrears must be paid to her without any delay and in any case within three months from today. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 9. Let a copy of this order be given to learned counsel appearing for BISCOMAUN.