Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.:- In the present case, petitioner, U.P. S.R.T.C. has approached this Court, questioning the validity of award dated 13.01.1994. 2. Brief background of the case is that the respondent Chandra Prakash had been working as semi-skilled workman in the Central Workshop of the petitioner Corporation. On 14.09.1985 four bottles of liquor were found in the box of Chandra Prakash, for which he was charge sheeted and suspended. He submitted reply to the said charge sheet; thereafter enquiry officer conducted departmental enquiry and submitted report on 12.05.1986. Based on the same order of dismissal of Chandra Prakash from service was passed on 20.06.1986. Validity of the said order was assailed by raising dispute, and the State Government in its turn under Section 4K of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court found the disciplinary proceedings in contravention of principles of natural justice, and therefore, the petitioners were afforded opportunity to lead evidence. Said opportunity was availed of and the labour Court vide its award dated 31.05.1993 set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of Chandra Prakash with full back wages. At the said juncture, present writ petition was filed. 3. On presentation of writ petition, this Court on 12.05.1994 passed following interim order: "Meanwhile petitioners shall permit respondent No.1 to work on the post and shall pay him current salary for which he shall be entitled. However, payment of arrears in pursuance of the award dated 31.5.93 shall remain stayed." 4. Pursuant to aforesaid interim order, Chandra Pakash was reinstated in service and ultimately, at the point of time when matter has been taken up for final hearing, he attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2010. 5. In the counter affidavit, it has been sought to be contended that charge regarding possession of four bottle liquor has not at all been substantiated by any means. In rejoinder affidavit, averments mentioned in the writ petition have been reiterated, and it has been sated that the view taken by the Llabour Court that the respondent workman would have consumed the liquor or given it to other employee for consuming it by them, the respondent could have been held guilty of committing the misconduct is based on mere surmises and conjectures. 6. 6. Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, and thereafter with the consent of the parties, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal. 7. Factual position which emerges, in the present case is that the domestic enquiry, which formed the foundation and basis for dispensation of service, has not been approved of by the Labour Court, as such Labour Court gave opportunity to lead evidence in support of the charges levelled against the workman. Labour Court in the present case has examined the evidence and thereafter has proceeded to mention that carrying on liquor bottles at work place can be accepted as violation of administrative order, but under the standing orders, same cannot be accepted as indiscipline, till the concerned employee not caught selling or consuming the same. The view taken by the Labour Court cannot be approved of, inasmuch as, carrying on liquor bottles at work place itself is a misconduct. 8. In normal course, the award passed by the Labour Court would have been set aside and matter remanded back for fresh decision, but in the present case, this facet of the matter that in pursuance of award of the Labour Court, the concerned workman had been reinstated back in service, and now on 30.04.2010 he has attained the age of superannuation, and it has been accepted before this Court that after reinstatement in service, no fresh misconduct of the kind has been committed or reported to have been committed by the workman. In such a situation, this Court refuses to interfere with the impugned award of the Labour Court. 9. However, in the facts of the case after the order of reinstatement has been passed, the payment of full back wages is not a matter of right. Consequently, looking into the totality of the circumstances, it is hereby directed that only 25% of the back wages will be admissible to the respondent workman. In terms of above observation and directions, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.