JUDGMENT V.M. SAHAI, J. 1. THIS intra court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.1.2002 passed in Special Civil Application No.7336 of 2001 by which the learned Single Judge has confirmed the award of the Labour Court, Surat dated 22.8.2000 passed in Reference (LCS) No.418 of 1999 by which the Labour Court has granted reinstatement of service with full backwages. We have heard Mr H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D G Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. THE facts in brief are that the respondent workman was working as a Conductor with the appellant Corporation. The respondent was transferred from Dwarka Depot of Rajkot Division to Mandvi Depot at Surat Division and he was relieved on 19.12.1995. The respondent joined duty at Mandvi Depot on 1.2.1996. On 23.2.1996, the respondent was sent on Kim-Godawadi route but he remained absent without prior permission and without submitting report for leave. In spite of asking him to join duty, he remained absent from 23.2.1996 to 4.5.1996. The respondent was issued charge sheet on 17.5.1996 and in the departmental inquiry the charges were proved. The respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 24.9.1996 against which he had approached the Labour Court, Surat as aforesaid and the Labour Court, by award dated 22.8.2000 passed in Reference (LCS) No.418 of 1999 directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity and full back wages. The appellant challenged the award before the learned Single Judge by filing Special Civil Application No.7336 of 2001. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition by order dated 29.1.2002. This order is under challenge in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the respondent workman had retired on 30.9.2003. He was reinstated in service pursuant to the award of the Labour Court. The learned Counsel has further urged that the award of 100% back wages is illegal and contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court. Apart from this argument, the learned counsel has not put forward any other argument in view of the fact that the respondent workman had retired from service. 3. THE only question which arises for consideration of this court is whether 100% back wages could have been awarded by the Labour Court. Apart from this argument, the learned counsel has not put forward any other argument in view of the fact that the respondent workman had retired from service. 3. THE only question which arises for consideration of this court is whether 100% back wages could have been awarded by the Labour Court. It is an admitted fact that the respondent workman was reinstated in service in pursuance of the award of the Labour Court. The Apex Court in Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. and Ors v. Ananta Saha and Ors. 2011 (4) SCALE 398, in para 47 held as under:- "THE issue of entitlement of back wages has been considered by this court time and again and consistently held that even after punishment imposed upon the employee is quashed by the court or tribunal, the payment of back wages still remains discretionary. Power to grant back wages is to be exercised by the court/tribunal keeping in view the facts in their entirety as no straitjacket formula can be evolved, nor a rule of universal application can be laid for such cases. Even if the delinquent is reinstated, it would not automatically make him entitled for back wages as entitlement to get back wages is independent of reinstatement. The factual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate authority/court or tribunal. In such matters, the approach of the court or the tribunal should not be rigid or mechanical but flexible and realistic. (Vide: U.P.SRTC v. Mitthu Singh, AIR 2006 SCC 3018; Secy., Akola Taluka Education Society and Anr. v. Shivaji and Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 564 ; and Managing Director, Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Limited v. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale, (2009) 2 SCC 288)". In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the law is settled that merely because the workman has been reinstated, 100% back wages could not have been awarded. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the writ petition so far as it confirms the award of granting of 100% back wages cannot be maintained. 4. LEARNED counsel for the respondent has urged that the appellant has not paid the post retiral dues to the respondent workman. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge passed in the writ petition so far as it confirms the award of granting of 100% back wages cannot be maintained. 4. LEARNED counsel for the respondent has urged that the appellant has not paid the post retiral dues to the respondent workman. In our opinion, the appellant is under legal obligation to pay post retiral dues to the respondent workman as he was reinstated in service and had retired from service in 2003. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The 100% back wages awarded by the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The award with regard to reinstatement of the workman is confirmed. The appellant Corporation is further directed to release the post-retiral benefits to the respondent workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.