ORDER The Management of Nalbari Urban Co-operative Bank Limited has preferred this writ petition challenging the award dated 28th November, 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam in Reference Case No.5/2003, insofar as it relates to the grant of full back-wages to the respondent No.3/workman. [2] Based on the reference made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court to adjudicate as to whether the Management of Nalbari Urban Co-operative Bank Limited was justified in dismissing the workman, Shri Putul Dutta, from service and if not what relief the workman is entitled to in lieu of, Reference Case No.5/2003 was registered before the Labour Court at Guwahati. [3] The Management as well as the workman had filed their respective written statements in support of their respective cases. [4] While the Management in the written statement has pleaded that the respondent No.3/workman has been dismissed from service vide order dated 23rd March, 2001 for his unauthorized absence of duties on 21st to 23rd February, 2001, apart from the ground that he has committed irregularities in sanctioning the loan against the LIC policy and misbehaved to his superiors, apart from violation of the undertaking given by the workman to be regular in future, the workman in the written statement filed has contended that his absence in earlier occasion was duly regularized by granting extra-ordinary leave without pay and thereafter, he was allowed to join on 25th January, 2001, whereafter though he took casual leave for 1(one) day, i.e. 20th February, 2001, he, however, could not attend the duty from 21st to 23rd February, 2001 due to his illness. It has further been pleaded that there was no violation of the undertaking given by him and in any case even absence in duty for 2(two) days does not amount to any misconduct. The further pleaded case of the workman is that he has been terminated from service without holding any enquiry. [5] The Labour Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has held that the workman was guilty of minor misconduct, i.e. absence of duty for 3(tree) days, namely, 21st February, 2001; 22nd February, 2001 and 23rd February, 2001, which does not warrant major punishment of dismissal from service. [5] The Labour Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has held that the workman was guilty of minor misconduct, i.e. absence of duty for 3(tree) days, namely, 21st February, 2001; 22nd February, 2001 and 23rd February, 2001, which does not warrant major punishment of dismissal from service. The order of dismissal from service dated 23rd March, 2001 has accordingly been set aside, more so keeping in view the fact that admittedly no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent No.3/workman. Having held so, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the respondent No.3/workman in service with full backwage. The said award has been challenged in the present writ petition only in respect of grant of back-wage. The Management has, pursuant to the aforesaid award, already reinstated the respondent No.3 in service. [6] I have heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/workman. [7] Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Management referring to the award passed holding that the respondent No.3/workman is guilty of committing of minor misconduct has submitted that since the Management is a small Urban Bank dealingwith the public money, the Labour Court ought not to have awarded back-wage while passing the award for reinstatement in service, without following the principle of “no work no pay”. Mr. Choudhury, therefore, submits that the award passed by the Labour Court relating to the grant of back-wage needs to be interfered with. [8] Mr. Bhagawati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/workman, on the other hand, supporting the award passed has submitted that though the Labour Court has found that the respondent No.3/workman has committed minor misconduct, it has also been held that he has been terminated from service without holding any enquiry. It has also been submitted that since the respondent No.3/ workman was not gainfully employed during the period of termination from service, no illegality has been committed by the Labour Court in granting full back-wages. [9] I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. [10] As noticed above, the Management has not challenged the award passed by the Labour Court relating to reinstatement in service. What has been challenged in the present writ petition is grant of back-wage. [9] I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. [10] As noticed above, the Management has not challenged the award passed by the Labour Court relating to reinstatement in service. What has been challenged in the present writ petition is grant of back-wage. It appears from the award passed by the Labour Court that the respondent No.3/workman was found to be guilty of minor misconduct of unauthorized leave from duty for 3(three) days. The writ petitioner/ Management is a small Urban Co-operative Bank of Nalbari having the turnover of only Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also an admitted position of fact that the petitioner is dealing with the public money being a Co-operative Bank. Having regard to the aforesaid fact and also applying the principle of “no work no pay”, I am of the view that the Labour Court ought not to have passed the award for full back-wage and instead ought to have compensated the respondent No.3/workman for the illegal action on the part of the Management. [11] That being the position, I set aside the award granting back-wage and instead direct the Management to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs), as compensation, to the respondent No.3/workman for the illegal action taken by them in terminating his services. The amount shall be paid within a month from today. [12] The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.