JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—List revised. Inspite of sufficient service, no one appears for the workmen respondents in any of the writ petitions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner employer. 2. These writ petitions are directed against combined award dated 29.10.1997 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV), U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Cases No. 82/94, 90/96, 91/96 and 100/96. The first writ petition relates to Adjudication Case No. 90/96. The second writ petition relates to Adjudication Case No. 91/96. The third writ petition relates to Adjudication Case No. 100/96. The fourth writ petition relates to Adjudication Case No. 82/94. Prem Prakash Dubey is workman respondent No. 3 in the first writ petition. Ashok Kumar son of Agya Ram is workman respondent No. 3 in the second writ petition. Sudhir Kumar Pandey is workman respondent No. 3 in the third writ petition. Ashok Kumar son of Sri Ganga Ram is workman respondent No. 3 in the fourth writ petition. 3. The matters, which were referred to the labour Court, were as to whether the action of the petitioner employer terminating the services of its aforesaid four workmen w.e.f. 9.2.1993 was just and legal or not. The main defence of the employer was that the workmen were employees of a thekedar. The labour Court after thorough enquiry held that contesting respondents were employees of the petitioner. The alleged thekedar was not produced. No evidence was filed by the petitioners to show that either the work of the contesting respondents was supervised by the thekedar or they were paid their wages by him. An agreement was also entered into in between workmen and petitioner employer. The version of the employer that at the time of agreement thekedar was present, however at the time of signing on the agreement he had left was rightly disbelieved by the labour Court. Ultimately termination orders were held illegal on the ground that no retrenchment compensation had been paid to the workmen as required by Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and reinstatement with full back wages was directed in each case. In these writ petitions on 20.7.1998, interim orders were passed staying the operation of the impugned awards only in so far as they directed payment of back wages provided that rest of the awards were implemented within a month. 4. In these writ petitions on 20.7.1998, interim orders were passed staying the operation of the impugned awards only in so far as they directed payment of back wages provided that rest of the awards were implemented within a month. 4. Workman respondent No. 3 in the second writ petition Ashok Kumar son of Agya Ram has died and has been substituted by his legal representatives. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in compliance of interim orders all the four workmen were reinstated and are working except Ashok Kumar son of Agya Ram who worked till his death. 6. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Supreme Court authority in Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner, 2008 (4) SCC 261 , labour Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the management and the workmen of a cooperative society as to such disputes Industrial Disputes Act does not apply and all such disputes should be adjudicated under U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. Even though the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is quite tenable, however it will be extremely unjust to relegate the parties to another forum after so many years. It is a settled principle of law that High Court can refuse to set aside even an illegal order in exercise of writ jurisdiction in case it will result in injustice. 7. Accordingly, on this principle I decline to set aside the awards in respect of direction of reinstatement. 8. However, as far as back wages are concerned, absolutely no evidence was adduced by the workmen to show that they were not gainfully employed anywhere else when they were not in service of the petitioner. There was therefore no occasion to direct payment of back wages. 9. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed in part. Impugned awards in respect of directions for payment of back wages are set aside. Directions for reinstatement given through the impugned awards are affirmed. 10. As far as second writ petition is concerned, the workman has died. Accordingly, relief of reinstatement granted to him by the labour Court has become infructuous. However, it is clarified that whatever wages were paid to Ashok Kumar son of Agya Ram when he was in service shall not be refundable from his heirs. —————