JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.-This judgment shall dispose of LPA No.18 of 2007 and LPA No.19 of 2007 as similar question for determination is involved in both the appeals. LPA No.18 of 2007 has arisen out of CWP No.561 of 2004 whereas LPA No.19 of 2007 has arisen out of CWP No.563 of 2004; both the writ petitions were decided by learned Single Judge on 3.5.2007 by separate judgments. 2. The case of workmen was that they were engaged on 29.9.1995 as daily rated labourers upto 31.7.1996, their services were terminated on 1.8.1996. The workmen had filed writ petition No.1592/96. The High Court on 9.8.1996, directed the management to re-engage the workmen on the same terms and conditions on which they were earlier working. CWP No. 1592/96 was dismissed on 29.10.1996 and the interim order was vacated. The High Court observed that the matter is governed by the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. It is open to workmen to approach the Tribunal. The workmen thereafter filed OA No.1080/HP/96 before Central Administrative Tribunal and on 1.11.1996 the Tribunal directed the management to maintain status quo as existed on 1.11.1996. OA No.1080/HP/96 was dismissed on 17.9.1998 with liberty to workmen to pursue their claim under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act) as the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter. The workmen raised the demand. In LPA No.18 of 2007 the Central Govt, Ministry of Labour vide letter dated 21.10.1999 had referred the following dispute for adjudication: “Whether the action of the Telecom Distt Manager, Hamirpur (H.P.) in terminating the services of Sh. Shashi Kamal S/o Sh. Sarav Ram w.e.f. 1.8.1996 and again w.e.f. 10.11.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled”. In LPA No.19 of 2007 the Central Govt. vide letter dated 21.10.1999 also referred the following dispute for adjudication”. “Whether the action of the Telecom Distt Manager, Hamirpur (H.P.) in terminating the services of Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Roop Lal w.e.f. 1.8.1996 and again w.e.f. 10.11.1998 is legal & justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled”. 3. The respondent Shashi Kamal submitted his statement of claim before respondent No.2 in case No.ID 224/99. The respondent Raj Kumar submitted his claim in case No.ID 223/99. The workmen pleaded that they were engaged as daily rated mazadoors on 29.9.1995 and continued upto 31.7.1996, their services were terminated on 1.8.1996. If not, to what relief he is entitled”. 3. The respondent Shashi Kamal submitted his statement of claim before respondent No.2 in case No.ID 224/99. The respondent Raj Kumar submitted his claim in case No.ID 223/99. The workmen pleaded that they were engaged as daily rated mazadoors on 29.9.1995 and continued upto 31.7.1996, their services were terminated on 1.8.1996. They had completed more than 240 days in the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 but all of sudden in the year 1998 the services of workmen were again terminated without following procedure prescribed under the Act. In the year 1996 some vacancies were available with the management. The names of workmen were sponsored by employment exchange on the basis of their experience. They were interviewed alongwith other candidates but they were ignored. It has been pleaded that management has violated Sections 25F, G, H of the Act while terminating the services of the workmen. 4. The claims of the workmen were contested by appellant. It was submitted that workmen were engaged as casual labourers. They had not completed 240 days of service and they were not appointed through transparent process of competition, hence workmen are not entitled to any relief. The workmen can not take benefit of their engagement after 9.8.1996 as such employment of the workmen was under the interim orders of the Court. The management has not violated any provision of the Act. The respondent No.2 had answered the references vide separate awards dated 31.3.2004 in favour of the workmen and held that termination of the services of the workmen on 1.8.1996 and again on 10.11.1998 are wrong and unjustified. The workmen are entitled to reinstatement of service with full back wages and benefit of continuity of service. 5. The learned Single Judge vide separate judgments on 3.5.2007 has affirmed the awards dated 31.3.2004 of respondent No.2. The learned Single Judge has also held that workmen are entitled to back wages from the date of awards dated 31.3.2004 till the date of re-engagement with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 1.8.2007 each appeal was admitted only on the question whether the workman is entitled to back wages, if so, to what extent? 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. On 1.8.2007 each appeal was admitted only on the question whether the workman is entitled to back wages, if so, to what extent? Thus the only question which is to be considered in the present appeals is whether the workmen are entitled to back wages when they were ordered to be reinstated and extent of back wages. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no proof of unemployment of workmen during the period of disengagement. The respondent No.2 and learned Single Judge have erred in giving full back wages to workmen. The learned counsel for the workmen has submitted that in the writ petition filed by the workmen earlier in this Court and Original Application filed by the workmen in the Tribunal, interim orders were passed in their favour. He has submitted that interim orders are passed on the basis of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. This Court and the Tribunal have found prima facie case etc. in favour of the workmen but later on this Court as well as Tribunal dismissed the writ petition and Original Application filed by the workmen on the ground of jurisdiction and not on merits. The management despite that continued to take stand that the termination of the workmen is justified. The long legal proceedings were thrusted by the management on the workmen. In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong in the judgments of learned Single Judge affirming the awards of respondent No.2 of reinstatement of workmen with full back wages. 7. The learned counsel for the workmen has relied Nicks (India) Tools vs. Ram Surat and another (2004) 8 SCC 222 in which the Labour Court has held that services of respondent No.1 were wrongly terminated by the management. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement alongwith 25% of the wages from the time his services were terminated till he was reinstated. The workman and management both challenged the order of the Labour Court. The High Court dismissed the petition of the management and awarded full back wages to the workman. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court awarding full back wages to the workman. The workman and management both challenged the order of the Labour Court. The High Court dismissed the petition of the management and awarded full back wages to the workman. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court awarding full back wages to the workman. To be fair to the learned counsel for the appellant he has also cited some judgments in support of his contention that respondent No.2 and learned Single Judge should not have allowed full back wages to workmen. 8. There is no dispute to the proposition of law that after order of reinstatement extent of back wages dependants upon facts and circumstances of each case. It can not be said as a proposition of law that in no case a workman is not entitled to full back wages after reinstatement. Simultaneously, it cannot also be said after reinstatement in every case the workman is entitled to full back wages. In view of Nicks (India) Tools, it cannot be said that as a principle of law the workman is not entitled to full back wages. It dependants upon the facts of each case to what extent back wages are to be given while allowing reinstatement. 9. The respondent No.2 has recorded a finding that in the cross-examination of workmen they have deposed that they are unemployed. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence on unemployment of workmen during the period they were disengaged by the management. In the present case, the management has taken indefensible stand regarding the termination of workmen. The long drawn legal proceedings were thrusted on the workmen by management. This Court and the Tribunal earlier had passed interim orders in favour of the workmen on the basis of prima facie case. It is a different matter that writ petition filed in this Court and Original Application filed in the Tribunal by the workmen were later on dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction but in view of interim orders passed by this Court and the Tribunal, the management should have looked into the case of the workmen more closely, but unfortunately the management continued to take the stand that terminations of the workmen were justified. The Labour Court and learned Single Judge have exercised discretion in allowing full back wages to workmen. The Labour Court and learned Single Judge have exercised discretion in allowing full back wages to workmen. It cannot be said that discretion exercised by Labour Court and learned Single Judge while allowing full back wages to workmen is in conflict with any law, more particularly in the facts of the present cases. Therefore, no fault can be found for awarding full back wages to the workmen. 10. No other point was urged. 11. The result of above discussion, there is no merit in both the appeals which are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim orders dated 1.8.2007 stand vacated.