JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The respondent-workman was working as a Fitter in the Hardoi Depot of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and was charge-sheeted on 10 counts. The workman denied the charges. An inquiry report was submitted holding that charge Nos. 1 and 4 could not be proved but the remaining charges stood proved. On the basis of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority terminated the services of the petitioner by an order dated 19th September, 2003. The workman, being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication by an order dated 25th January, 2006. The Labour Court by an award dated 12th September, 2008, which was published on 16th April, 2009, has allowed the claim of the workman and has quashed the order of termination and further, directed the employer to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and will full back wages. The employers, being aggrieved, by the said order has filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri Lallan Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shitla Sahai, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court initially gave an award dated 1st February, 2008 dismissing the claim of the petitioner and upholding the order of termination but subsequently, without there being a review application gave a fresh award dated 12th September, 2008 setting aside the order of termination and directing reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages. Consequently, the said award was wholly illegal and was liable to be aside. 4. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court, without considering the material evidence on record, has illegally held that charge Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 could not be proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that no reasons has been specified by the Labour Court while holding that the aforesaid charges could not be proved. 5. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 could not be proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that no reasons has been specified by the Labour Court while holding that the aforesaid charges could not be proved. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it was not open to the Labour Court to review the findings given in the inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer, inasmuch as the Labour Court was not adjudicating the matter as an appellate Court and that the Labour Court could only sift the evidence on record only after giving a finding that the inquiry proceedings were violative of the principles of natural justice, which in the instant case was not done nor the inquiry report was set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the first award given by the Labour Court dated 1st February, 2008 was not published under Section 6 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No allegations has been made that a review application was moved by the workman or that the award was published. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the Labour Court did not become functus officio and had the jurisdiction to pass an award. 7. Assuming that the Labour Court did make an award but since same was not published, it was open to the Presiding Officer to pass a fresh award. There is no allegation of mala fides or extraneous consideration and, consequently, the Court is of the opinion that so long as the award was not published, it was open to the Labour Court to review its own order, which had been reserved and which had not been published. 8. The Court has perused the award and the findings given by the Labour Court on the various charges. The Court finds that only charge No. 5 has been proved and other charges have not been proved. The Labour Court has considered the evidence and has applied its mind, which the Court does not find any fault. The reasonings given by the Labour Court is based on the material evidence on record, which this Court is not inclined to interfere in a writ jurisdiction, since the Court does not find that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse. 9. The reasonings given by the Labour Court is based on the material evidence on record, which this Court is not inclined to interfere in a writ jurisdiction, since the Court does not find that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse. 9. Even for the sake of argument, assuming that the charge Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 stood proved, the Court is of the opinion that the cumulative effect of these charges were not that grave, which would commensurate the penalty of termination of the services and, consequently, on this ground, the Court is of the opinion that the order of termination was too harsh a punishment. 10. Even though, the Labour Court has gone into the evidence and has reconsidered the matter, which it ought not to do so unless the inquiry proceedings were vitiated, the Court finds that the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer was violative of the principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer has virtually given an ex-parte report after considering various documents and reports given by various officers. Once an inquiry has been set up and a charge has been framed, the Inquiry Officer is required to conduct an inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice, meaning thereby, that the Inquiry Officer has to cross-examine the witnesses and give an opportunity to the workman to cross-examine those witnesses. Giving an inquiry report on the basis of documents is by itself not sufficient. An opportunity to the workman ought to have been given especially when the workman has denied charges. 11. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the inquiry proceedings was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and, consequently, the Labour Court even though, it has not set aside the inquiry report, considered the evidence on record and gave its evidence, the Court is of the opinion that the award of the Labour Court could not be set aside on this ground itself. 12. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not see any error in the award of the Labour Court with regard to the reinstatement of the workman and giving a lesser punishment commensurate of the misconduct, which stood proved in relation to charge No. 4. 13. The Court however, finds that the order of termination was passed in the year 2003. 13. The Court however, finds that the order of termination was passed in the year 2003. Conciliation proceedings were initiated in the year 2004, reference was made by the State Government in the year 2006 and the award was given in the year 2008, which was published in the year 2009. The Court is of the opinion that considering these aspects, the award of full back wages is excessive and, consequently, in the light of the aforesaid facts, coupled with the principle of “no work no pay”, this Court is of the opinion that the award of full back wages is likely to be modified and is substituted to 50% back wages but with continuity of service. 14. In the light of the aforesaid, the ward of the Labour Court is modified. The order of reinstatement with the punishment is upheld and the award of the Labour Court of full back wages is modified to 50% back wages with continuity of service. 15. This modification of the award in relation to back wages will only be applicable in the event, the award has not, as yet been implemented. This Court finds that no interim order was passed when the writ petition was entertained and, consequently, in the event, the award has been implemented and back wages have been paid, in that event no recovery would be made by the employers. 16. The writ petition is partly allowed.