Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J.:- By means of present writ petition, the judgment and award dated 20.2.2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Industrial Tribunal No. (II), U.P. Lucknow in Adjudication Case No. 92 of 1997 is under challenge. 2. Heard Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Dubey, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.2. Brief Facts 3. The factual matrix of the present case are that Sri Surendra Kumar Dixit, respondent no.2 was initially appointed as Truck Driver on muster roll basis in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited( hereinafter referred to as' Corporation') in the month of October, 1975. 4. On 20.1.1984 he was placed in group -B category of workmen on monthly rate of wages in the Corporation. On 9.1.1991, respondent no.2 had proceeded on leave did not report for duty and remained absent for about three years and eight months . Thereafter on 14.1.1994 and 16.12.1994 an undated application submitted by respondent no.2 through post for sanction of leave from 30.12.1993 to 30.1.1994 and 30.1.1994 to 30.3.1994 were received by the Corporation . Lastly, on 7.4.1994 an undated application of respondent no.2 was received by the Corporation for sanction of leave from 30.3.1994 to 30.4.1994 in response to the said applications, the Deputy Project Manager of the Corporation on 27.7.1994 had directed him to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur for medical examination and requested the said authority to examine the respondent no.2 and to inform disease from which he was suffering . 5. Accordingly, the opposite party no.2 appeared before the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur for the purpose of medical examination and after examining him a report dated 16.8.1994 was submitted by Chief Medical officer, Kanpur to the Corporation stating therein that Sri Surendra Kumar Dixit was fit to discharge his duty, further in the medical report it was also observed that since the period of illness of Sri Surrendra Kumar Dixit had expired so it was not possible to give any opinion in respect to nature of illness from which he was suffering . 6. In view of the said fact, respondent no.2 on 17.8.1994 submitted his joining before the Deputy Project Manager of the Corporation alongwith medical certificate of Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur but not allowed to join his duty. 6. In view of the said fact, respondent no.2 on 17.8.1994 submitted his joining before the Deputy Project Manager of the Corporation alongwith medical certificate of Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur but not allowed to join his duty. Thereafter on 8.8.1995 as per the provisions contained in Clause L-2-12 of the Standing orders and Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 42 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, the name of the respondent no.2 was struck off from the rolls of the Corporation by the Deputy Project Manager of the Corporation. 7. Aggrieved by the above said action, respondent no.2 raised a industrial dispute registered as Adjudication Case no. 92 of 1997 before respondent no.1 . By means of judgment and award dated 20.2.2001 Labour Court had directed that the action on the part of the Corporation thereby not allowing the workmen/respondent no.2 to discharge his duties with effect from 17.8.1994 is illegal and unconstitutional, accordingly it was held that workmen/respondent no.2 is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages for the period from 9.8.1991 to 16.8.1994, hence the present writ petition has been filed by the Corporation thereby challenging the award dated 20.2.2001 passed by the Labour Court as contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition. SUBMISSION BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 8. Sri Shishir Jain learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the award dated 20.1.2001submits that the same is contrary to provision in Clause L-2-12 of the Standing orders of the Corporation, consequently the same is patently illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 9. He further submits that while passing the award dated 20.2.2001, respondent no.1 had failed to take into consideration the provisions contained in Clause L-2-12 of the Standing Orders which provides that if any workmen remained absent from duty without leave for more than 13 consecutive days, he shall be deemed to have left the services of he Corporation on his own accord, without notice so in view of the said fact the contract of service of the respondent no.2 with the corporation was terminated and consequently the award dated 20.2.2001 is erroneous and stinks with non application of mind by the respondent no.1. 10. 10. He further submits that respondent no.1 has failed to take into consideration that no opinion was given by the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar regarding the ailment with which the opposite party no.2 had suffered during the period during which he was absent from duty and the medical certificates issued by the Registered Medical Practitioner, as submitted by the opposite party no.2 in respect of his ailment, was not counter signed by the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur Nagar, and consequently it has wrongly and illegally been held by the opposite party no.1 that the opposite party no.2 was actually ill since 9.1.1991. Accordingly the action on the part of the Labour Court thereby awarding back wages for the period from 9.1.1991 to 16.8.1994 is an action which is illegal and arbitrary in nature and the same cannot sustain under Law as no reason has been given by respondent no.1 for awarding the same in favour of respondent no.2. 11. In support of his arguments he relies upon the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reetu Marbles Vs. Prabhakant Shukla, (2010) 2 Supreme Court cases, 70. 12. Sri B. P. Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no.2 while supporting the award dated 20.2.2001 submits that respondent no.2 was working in the Corporation had fallen ill on 9.1.1991 and after intimation to the immediate superior for leave on medical ground proceeded to his home district Kanpur. However, he fell seriously ill so from Kanpur time and again he intimated in respect to his illness alongwith medical certificate to the superior authority. Later on, when he recovered from illness he reported for duties but he was not allowed to join the same and was directed by letter no. 538/E-5/94 dated 27.7.1994 issued by Deputy Project Manager, of the Corporation to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur for medical examination . 13. He further submits that thereafter he appeared before the said authority on 16.8.1994 and the said authority after medically examining him had given a medical certificate dated 27.7.1994 mentioning therein that he is fit to resume his duties and accordingly he submitted his joining on 17.8.1994 alongwith medical certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur but he was not allowed to join his duties. Aggrieved by the said action an industrial dispute has been raised by respondent no.2 (Adjudication Case no.92 of 1997) before respondent no.1. 14. Aggrieved by the said action an industrial dispute has been raised by respondent no.2 (Adjudication Case no.92 of 1997) before respondent no.1. 14. Sri Dubey further argued that alleged shelter as taken by the petitioner of Clause L-2-12 of the Standing orders in terminating the service of respondent no.2 is incorrect and wrong in view of the facts of the case coupled with the provision as provided under Section 6 R of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947, so the award given by Labour court is perfectly valid and needs no interference. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. Undisputed facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Sri Surendra Kumar Dixit was an employee of the Corporation and while working and discharging his duties he fell ill on 9.1.1994 and proceeded to his home district Kanpur. Later on when he recovered from illness, he went to join his duties but was not allowed by the authorities of the Corporation. 17. The Deputy Project Manager of Bridge Corporation Unit no.1 by letter dated 27.7.1994 had directed respondent no.2 to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur for medical examination and the said authority was requested to examine him and inform about the disease . 18. Accordingly, on 16.8.1994, the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur had examined the respondent no.2 and given a medical report stating therein after medical examination of Sri Surendra Kumar Dixit that he is fit to perform his duties. So for as the illness from which he was suffering in the past, it was not possible to give any opinion as the period of illness had expired . The said medical certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur is on record as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. Thereafter, Sri Surendra Kumar Dixit (respondent no.2) On 17.8.1994 alongwith medical certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur approached the concerned authority of the Corporation in order to join his duties but not allowed . The said medical certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur is on record as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit. Thereafter, Sri Surendra Kumar Dixit (respondent no.2) On 17.8.1994 alongwith medical certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur approached the concerned authority of the Corporation in order to join his duties but not allowed . Later on his services were terminated on the ground that in view of the provision contained in Section L-2-12 of the Standing orders for workmen employed in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited read with the provisions as contained in Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 42 of the Rules, the said action on the part of the petitioner is illegal as in the award dated 20.2.2001 the learned Tribunal had given a the categorical finding of fact that the employer did not obtain any medical examination of the employee whether he is fit to perform his duties on the post of driver or not but requested the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur to examine the respondent no.2 and after medically examining him the said authority gave a medical report dated on 16.8.1994 stating that the employee is fit for performing the duties therefore the action on the part of the employer not to allow him to join his duties amounts to unfair labour practice and on the basis of the said fact the Labour Court had passed the award dated 20.2.2001 holding that the action on the part of the employer thereby not allowing the respondent no.2 to work and discharge his duty with effect from 17.8.1994 is illegal and unconstitutional. 19. 19. Keeping in view the said fact and also taking in to account that in the the present case as stated above, the respondent no.2 Sri Surendra Kumar Dixit after submitting his joining before the Deputy Project Manager, Bridge Construction Unit NO.1, Lucknow and thereafter by order dated 27.7.1994 was directed to appear before Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur for medical examination and after examining him the said authority had submitted medical report that he was fit to resume his duties then there was no justification or reasons on the part of the petitioner/employer not to allow him to join duties, on one hand, and on the other hand take 'U' turn in the garb of the provisions contain in Clause L-2-12 of the Standing Orders read with Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 42 of the Rules by which the name of respondent no.2 was struck off from the rolls of the Corporation by the Deputy Project Manager, Bridge Construction Unit No.1, Lucknow, is an action which is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 20. In the case of Angad Das Vs. Union of India and other (2010) 3 SCC 463 ) in which Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:- "People in power and authority should not easily lose equanimity, composure and appreciation for the problems of the lesser mortals. They are always expected to remember that power and authority must be judiciously exercised according to the laws and human compassion. Arrogance and vanity have no place in discharge of their official functions and duties." 21. Accordingly the said action on the part of employer/petitioner thereby not allowing the respondent no.2 to work and discharge ihs duty with effect from 17.8.1994, after he submit his joining report alongwith medical certificate issued by Chief Medical Certificate, Kanpur that too on the direction of the petitioner for medical examination is an action cannot be sustained and the findings given in this regard by the Labour Court are perfectly valid . So the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected . 22. So the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected . 22. So far as the next arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal did not gave any findings on the basis of which it has awarded the back wages to respondent no.2 for the period from 9.1.1991 to 16.8.1994 as such the said action on the part of the respondent no.1 is illegal in view of the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reetu Marbles (supra) has held as under:- "Para-15-From the above observation it becomes apparent that payment of full back wages upon an order of termination being declared illegal cannot be granted mechanically. It does not automatically follow that reinstatement must be accompanied by payment of full back wages even for the period when the workman remained out of service and contributed little or nothing to the industry. Para-20- In our opinion the High Court was unjustified in awarding full back wages. We are also of the opinion that the Labour Court having found the termination to be illegal was unjustified in not granting any back wages at all. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case we direct that the respondent shall be paid 50% of the back wages from the date of termination of service till reinstatement." 23. Undoubtedly, in the present case, the Tribunal while awarding the back wages for the period from 9.1.1991 to 16.8.1994 had not given any finding in its award for awarding the same but from the perusal of the record it is established that para 21 of the written statement filed on behalf of workmen ( Surendra Kumar Dixit) appeared before opposite party no.1 in Adjudication Case no. 92 of 1997 in which it is stated as under:- "That the concerned workman is unemployed since the date of termination, he could not get employment elsewhere. His family has been reached at the stage of starvation. His daughters are in position in marriageable stage but due to economically hardship he could not arranged their marriages.” 24. 92 of 1997 in which it is stated as under:- "That the concerned workman is unemployed since the date of termination, he could not get employment elsewhere. His family has been reached at the stage of starvation. His daughters are in position in marriageable stage but due to economically hardship he could not arranged their marriages.” 24. In rebuttal to the above said facts, the employer ( Corporation ) the affidavit filed by Sri B.K. Tewari, Project Manager, U.P. State Bridge Corporation, B.C.U.-1 Aishbagh, Lucknow in para 15 has stated as under:- " The averments as made in para-21 of written statement need no comment." 25. Accordingly, on the basis of said material documentry evidence which is available on record which is an admission on behalf of the respondent no.2 that he was not gainfully employed during the period he was out of job and the said fact has not been disputed by the employer/petitioner rather in rebuttal to the same it was stated/pleaded by the employer/petitioner that it needs no comments which amounts to admission of said fact. 26. In the case of Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "... Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule." 27. In the very nature of things there cannot be a straitjacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on the face of the record. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular." 28. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular." 28. In the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Limited Vs. Udai Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- "No precise formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances payment of entire back wages should be allowed . Indisputably, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It would, however, not be correct to contend that it is automatic. It should not be granted mechanically only because on technical grounds or otherwise an order of termination is found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-N of th U.P. Industrial Disputes Act." 29. In the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corpn. (2010) 3 SCC 192 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:- "The Labour Court, Gurdaspur, by its award directed reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages, but the award of the Labour Court was modified by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the writ petition and this Court has held that the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court was liable to be set aside only on the ground that while interfering with the award of the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge did not keep in view the parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution." 30. In the case of Krishna Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural, Marketing Board,Rohtak (Haryana) (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 637, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:- "In the present case, the respondent has not taken any stand before the Labour Court in his objections that the post in which the workman was working was not sanctioned or that his engagement was contrary to statutory rules or that he was employed elsewhere or that there was not vacancy. In the absence of any pleadings, evidence or findings on any of these aspects, the High Court should not have modified the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages and instead of directed payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the appellant." 31. Further in Harjinder Singh (Supra), the Apex Court has observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution, the High Courts are duty-bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV of the Constitution including Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43-A thereof. Thus the Court have a duty to interpret statutes with social welfare benefits in such a way as to further the statutory goal and not to frustrate it. 32. Further it cannot be disputed that Wide discretion is vested with the Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal etc . of a workman and if the Labour Court has exercised its jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case to direct reinstatement of a workman with full back wages taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the same, except on well-settled principles laid down for a writ of certiorari against an order passed by the Labour Court/Tribunal as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari Vs. Central Administration Tribunal 2010 (28) LCD 283 this Court has held as under :- "It is now well settled law that while exercising the power of judicial review in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not supposed to interfere with the findings of the facts arrived at by the Tribunal unless and until this Court concludes that such findings of fact are either perverse or based on no evidence." 33. In the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & others, ( 1964(5) SCR 64 ) the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "finding of fact cannot be challenged in a proceeding on the ground that the relevant and material evidence was insufficient to sustain the finding and that adequate or sufficiency of evidence or an inference of fact to be drawn from the evidence or finding of fact are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal." 34. In the case of State of West Bengal v. A.K. Shaw, ( AIR 1990 SC 2205 ), the Supreme Court has observed that if quasi judicial Tribunal had appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, those findings of fact would be binding on the High Court. By the process of Judicial review, the High Court cannot appreciate the evidence and record its own findings of fact. 35. In the instant case, it is not disputed on the basis of record rather admitted that between the parties as th same are not denied by the petitioner in the pleadings before the Labour Court which amounts to admission is perfectly valid and needs no interference that the respondent no. 2 was not gainfully employed from the period 9.1.1991 to 16.8.1994 so the action on the part of the Tribunal thereby awarding back wages by its award dated 20.2.2001, so the arguments made in this regard by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force and rejected. 36. For the foregoing reasons, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and award dated 20.2.2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Industrial Tribunal No. (II) U.P. Lucknow in Adjudication Case no.92 of 1997. 37. The present writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed accordingly. 38. No order as to costs.