Judgment :- 1. The writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the award passed by the first respondent Labour court in I.D.No.12/93 dated 16.07.2007. By the impugned award, the Labour court, while directing reinstatement of the petitioner upto 31.01.2000 with continuity of service, but declined to grant backwages. The workman is aggrieved by the deprivation of the backwages for the entire period. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 24.07.2008. When the matter came up on 07.10.2000, this Court directed the management to explore the possibility of making the reinstatement into one of compensation. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time. 3. On notice from this Court, the second respondent sugar mill has filed a counter affidavit dated 17.03.2009. In the counter affidavit, it is stated by the management that the mill has paid the backwages upto 31.01.2000. In paragraph 16, it is stated that they considered that workman reached the age of superannuation and therefore, the amounts have been settled in his favour. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was employed as a security guard in the second respondent Sugar Mills. He was placed under suspension on 11.07.1990 and charge memo was given to him on 19.07.1990. Inspite of his explanation, a domestic enquiry was conducter. Thereafter, his service was terminated on 27.05.1991. The gravemen among the charges against the petitioner was that he was found missing from the duty spot on 22.04.1990 and on being questioned by superiors, he abused them with filthy words. Further, when he was on duty on 09.07.1990, three women attempted to commit theft of gun metal kept by them, which was not detected or reported by him. According to the petitioner, the charges were false and no such incident had taken place and juste to spite him, his superior Kuppusamy gave a false complaint and the time of the alleged theft was deliberately shifted to 3.45 p.m., even though the said incident had happened at 1 to 2 p.m., when he was in a different section to substitute the security duty to another Guard. He also submitted that the enquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice. After the dismissal, he took up the matter to the Labour Officer, which, finally, resulted in a reference. He also submitted that the enquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice. After the dismissal, he took up the matter to the Labour Officer, which, finally, resulted in a reference. The Claim Statement filed by the petitioner was taken on filed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.12 of 1993. 5. Before the Labour Court, document Ex.W.1 was filed on the side of the workman, which is the judgment of the Criminal Court in C.C.No.229 of 1990 and on the side of the second respondent Management, Exs.M.1 to M.13 were marked. The documents were marked by consent. Procedural aspect of the enquiry was not challenged. Hence, the Labour Court held that only the validity of the finding of the Enquiry Officer was challenged before it. Thereafter, the Labour Court instead of going into the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry, tangent from the issue and declined to grant relief to the workman, which made the workman to file writ petitions challenging the denial of relief. That writ petition came to be allowed after notice to the management on the short ground that the Labour Court did not go into the findings in the enquiry and after setting aside the award dated 17.08.2000 remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is pursuant to the order of remand, that the Labour court had passed the present impugned award dated 16.07.2007 as noted above. 6. The contention raised by the workman are two fold:-Firstly, that the management was wrong in clubbing two charges and passed the single penalty order and it is not permissible. Secondly, the Labour court having found that the workman had not abandoned the post but roasted to some other section, therefore, the deprivation of entire backwages is erroneous. The Labour court, after remand found that the workman's penalty was not proper and he was entitled for reinstatement. At the same time, the Labour Court held that he is not entitled for any backwages. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the management, it was once again contended that the charge was dereliction of duty and during that period there were theft of gunmetal worth of Rs.2,000/- was proved, which is particularly due to the negligence of work by the workman ; had he been in the check post between 1 and 2 p.m., such a theft would not have taken place. Witnesses were also examined by the management to prove that the petitioner was not found in the relevant spot. Though the Labour court did not specifically assign any specific reason for declining the wages, since in earlier round of litigation, the Labour court was directed to exercise power under Section 11 A both on the question of rendering finding as well as on the question of penalty,now the Labour court has granted relief to the workman by granting reinstatement to the workman. On the ground of disproportionate punishment contended by the workman, the Labour court declined to interfere on the same. While granting relief to the workman, the Labour court had denied backwages in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon some judgments of this Court and other courts only for the purpose of proving that if the workman is exonerated of charges, he is entitled for backwages. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mandatory provisions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been followed in this case. However, these cases do not have relevance to the present facts. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the direction that can be given to the second respondent in this case is that, if any further terminal dues are due to the petitioner, including gratuity, provident fund or other any amounts, the same shall be settled within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, without driving the workman to any other execution forum. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the amounts have not been settled though it was stated in paragraph 16 of the counter that the amounts are settled in favour of the workman. If that is so, the management shall pay the amounts due to the petitioner as stated above. 11. With the above observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 stands closed.