Judgment : Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge to the award is only to the refusal of backwages though by order dated 15 July 2007, the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, directed to reinstate the Petitioner. Admittedly, the Respondents have not challenged the impugned award/order. 3. Admittedly, the action was of the year 2000. The reference was made in the year 2006. The learned Judge, though observed knowing fully the nature of transaction and the financial implication and the requirement of banking mandatory procedural aspect, observed as under:- “On the contrary, page 5 of Exhibit 15 reveals that, he credited those amounts in the account of the concerned customers within few days and did not retain those for ever. At the most it can be called as temporary misappropriation but it does not mean that, he utilized that amount his own purpose for ever. Besides no criminal case is filed against him. No evidence is led by the 1st Party showing that, the concerned workman has fabricated the record as alleged and is guilty of the act of misappropriation. So I conclude that, the evidence led by the 1st Party lead us to conclude that, the concerned workman did not utilised the said amount and it is not misappropriation as alleged. So I answer this issue in the negative.” 4. Though, the conclusion is that there was temporary misappropriation but, no utilization of the amount forever. There is no concept like the temporary misappropriation and/or permanent misappropriation. The concept if accepted, in my view, that itself, considering the facts and the reasonings, is sufficient not to interfere with the order of reinstatement, without backwages, as there is no counter challenge. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pointed out the affidavit dated 29 December 2008. In para 8 of the said affidavit reads as under:- “8 I say that inspite of my efforts to find the employment, I could not get any job in the Government as well as in the private establishment and right from the date of my termination I am unemployed. I further say that because of my overage I am finding it very difficult to get any job. I further say that because of my overage I am finding it very difficult to get any job. I further say that the entire burden of my family is on my shoulder and I am finding it extremely difficult to survive in the present days of inflation. I therefore, pray this Honourable Court to allow the present reference in affirmative and grant me reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.” 6. In view of this, the case of the Petitioner is that he was without job and without employment for long and therefore, further submitted that his entitlement at least from the period 2006 to 2010 ought to have been considered though may not be 100% but some reasonable amount. Normally, “no work, no pay” should be the formula. It is settled that the reinstatement should not be always followed by full backwages in every matter. The Court is entitled to consider the facts, circumstances and background of the matter while granting the order of back wages. In a given case, the Court while passing such order may even refuse to reinstate such person but may pass the order of some backwages and instead of granting reinstatement, the Court can also grant some compensation and/or some lump sum amount. Therefore, to say that in the present case also the Court ought to have granted some compensation, in my view, is unacceptable basically in view of the finding already recorded. As noted, there is no challenge raised by the Respondents, I see there is no case made out by the Petitioner to interfere with the order of reinstatement without back wages. 7. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.