Order : In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the award dated 30.7.2011, passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, in Ref.No.7/2010 vide Annexure F. 2. By the impugned award at Annexure-F, the Labour Court has allowed the reference and has set aside the order of dismissal dated 25.7.2000 and has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent into service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The back wages have been denied. 3. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 4. Briefly stated the facts are : The respondent was working as a driver in the petitioner-Corporation. On 9.8.1992, the respondent was driving the bus bearing No.CAF 626 from Nelamangala to Bangalore. At that time, the accident occurred near Peenya Dasarahalli Bus Station. The respondent was issued with articles of charges on 7.9.1992. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer has dismissed the respondent from service by order dated 25.7.2000. The appeal filed by the respondent has been dismissed on 9.1.2001. 5. The respondent has raised dispute in I.D.No.110/2001 under section 10(4A) of the I.D. Act. By award dated 8.11.2002, the Labour Court has set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the respondent. The award passed by the Labour Court has been challenged by the petitioner-Corporation in W.P.No.29924/2003. This court by its interim order has directed reinstatement of the respondent into service subject to the result of the writ petition. Consequently, the respondent has been reinstated into service w.e.f. 5.9.2003. 6. Thereafter, by order dated 31.8.2006 W.P.No.29924/2003 was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. The Labour Court by its award dated 26.9.2008 rejected the claim of the respondent. On 19.2.2009, the respondent was relieved from service. The respondent challenged the award passed by the Labour Court in W.P.No.9444/2009. This court by its order dated 23.6.2009 remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the respondent has withdrawn the case by filing a memo dated 5.8.2009. 7. Thereafter, a dispute has been raised in Ref.No.7/2010 u/s 10(1)(c) of the I.D.Act. On 19.2.2009, the respondent was relieved from service. The respondent challenged the award passed by the Labour Court in W.P.No.9444/2009. This court by its order dated 23.6.2009 remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the respondent has withdrawn the case by filing a memo dated 5.8.2009. 7. Thereafter, a dispute has been raised in Ref.No.7/2010 u/s 10(1)(c) of the I.D.Act. The Labour Court by its award dated 30.7.2011 has allowed the reference and has directed reinstatement of the respondent into service by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 25.7.2000. The Labour Court has granted continuity of service and all consequential benefits. However, the back wages have been denied. The Labour Court has held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and the respondent was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Further, holding that the punishment is disproportionate has set aside the order of dismissal and has directed reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits without back wages. Therefore, this writ petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained in law. She also submitted that the Labour Court having held that the charges are proved was not justified in directing reinstatement and granting all consequential benefits and continuity of service. Further she submitted that when the misconduct is proved, the Labour Court was not justified in granting all consequential benefits. She placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2007)2 SCC page 433. She therefore submitted that the impugned award cannot be sustained in law. 9. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned award does not call for interference. He also submitted that the Labour Court taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and that the punishment is disproportionate has directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits and continuity of service and therefore, the impugned award does not call for interference. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. The point that arises for my consideration is: Whether the impugned award calls for interference? 12. It is relevant to note, the respondent has joined service as driver in the petitioner-Corporation. On 9.8.1992, the respondent was driving the bus bearing No.CAF 626 from Nelamangala to Bangalore. 11. The point that arises for my consideration is: Whether the impugned award calls for interference? 12. It is relevant to note, the respondent has joined service as driver in the petitioner-Corporation. On 9.8.1992, the respondent was driving the bus bearing No.CAF 626 from Nelamangala to Bangalore. At that time, the accident has occurred near Peenya Dasarahalli Bus Station. The bus has dashed against the pillion rider of a bicycle. After holding enquiry, the respondent was found guilty of the charge levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated 25.7.2000 has dismissed the respondent from service. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The respondent has filed I.D.No.110/2001 under Section 10(4A) of the I.D.Act. By award dated 8.11.2002, the Labour Court has directed to reinstate the respondent into service. It was challenged by the Corporation in W.P.No.29924/2003. An interim has been passed directing to reinstate the respondent into service subject to the result of the writ petition. Consequently, the respondent has been reinstated into service. Thereafter, by order dated 31.8.2006 W.P.No.29924/2003 has been allowed and the matter has been remitted for fresh consideration. By award dated 26.9.2008, the Labour Court has dismissed the claim of the respondent. The respondent has challenged the award in W.P.No.9444/2009. This court has remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the respondent has withdrawn the case on 5.8.2009 by filing a memo. Subsequently, a dispute has been raised in Ref.No.7/2010 u/s 10(1)(c) of the I.D.Act. The Labour Court by its award dated 30.7.2011 has allowed the reference and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits without back wages. The litigation has gone on for years and the respondent was reinstated into service by virtue of the interim order w.e.f 5.9.2003 and the respondent has continued in service till 19.2.2009. In the circumstances of the case, the Labour Court was justified in directing reinstatement. However, the Labour Court was not justified in awarding consequential benefits. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.K.Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P.Agarwal and another reported in (2007) 2 SCC page 433 has observed as follows at para 19; “19. But the cases referred to above, where backwages were awarded, related to termination/retrenchment which were held to be illegal and invalid for noncompliance with statutory requirements or related to cases where the court found that the termination was motivated or amounted to victimization. But the cases referred to above, where backwages were awarded, related to termination/retrenchment which were held to be illegal and invalid for noncompliance with statutory requirements or related to cases where the court found that the termination was motivated or amounted to victimization. The decisions relating to back wages payable on illegal retrenchment or termination may have no application to the case like the present one, where the termination (dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement) is by way of punishment for misconduct in a departmental inquiry, and the court confirms the finding regarding misconduct, but only interferes with the punishment being of the view that it is excessive, and awards a lesser punishment, resulting in the reinstatement of employee. Where the power under Article 226 or section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act (or any other similar provision) is exercised by any Court to interfere with the punishment on the ground that it is excessive and the employee deserves a lesser punishment, and a consequential direction is issued for reinstatement, the court is not holding that the employer was in the wrong or that the dismissal was illegal and invalid. The court is merely exercising its discretion to award a lesser punishment. Till such power is exercised, the dismissal is valid and in force. When the punishment is reduced by a court as being excessive, there can be either a direction for reinstatement or a direction for a nominal lump sum compensation. And if reinstatement is directed, it can be effective either prospectively from the date of such substitution of punishment (in which event, there is no continuity of service) or retrospectively, from the date on which the penalty of termination was imposed (in which event, there can be a consequential direction relating to continuity of service). What requires to be noted in cases where finding of misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with (as contrasted from cases where termination is held to be illegal or void) is that there is no automatic reinstatement; and if reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically with retrospective effect from the date of termination. Therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither backwages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. Therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither backwages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions etc.” 14. It is clear, when reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct has been held to be proved, the reinstatement itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment and award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. In such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should be only for purposes of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions etc., 15. In the present case, the Labour Court has held that the enquiry was fair and proper and the Enquiry Officer was justified in holding that the respondent was guilty of the charges. Inspite of that, the Labour Court has not only directed reinstatement but also granted all consequential benefits and continuity of service without back wages. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, the Labour Court was not justified in granting all consequential benefits. The continuity of service can be only for the purpose of pensionary/retirement benefits. Therefore, the impugned award needs to be modified to that extent. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court in Ref.No.7/2010 is hereby modified as follows: The respondent shall be reinstated into service without back wages for the period not worked. Therefore, the impugned award needs to be modified to that extent. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Labour Court in Ref.No.7/2010 is hereby modified as follows: The respondent shall be reinstated into service without back wages for the period not worked. The respondent shall not be entitled to any consequential benefits. The continuity of service shall be only for the purpose of pensionary/retirement benefits.