JUDGMENT : Ravi V. Malimath, J. The appellant had a printing press engaged in printing newspapers for M/s. Bennett Coleman And Company Limited. It was taken over by the second appellant in the year 1994. The appellant employed Shri. Basavaraj, Shri. Venkatappa and Shri. Lingappa as plate-makers. Their function was negative joining. They were functioning as such. Subsequently, the three workmen took a contention that negative joining was not their job and they abruptly stopped doing the work of negative joining, which they had been doing for the previous years. Hence, a show-cause notice was issued and they were suspended. After receiving the order of suspension, Shri. Lingappa reported to work and continued to do the negative joining. The Management initiated domestic enquiry against Shri. Basavaraj and Shri. Venkatappa. 2. Subsequently, on 13.05.1992, the suspension was revoked. Inspite of revocation, the two workmen namely, Basavaraj and Venkatappa refused to work. They raised a disputed against the first appellant alleging that they were being forced to carry out the work of negative joining. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Bangalore. 3. The Labour Court by its order dated 25.01.2006, accepted the reference. The appellant was directed to treat Basavaraj and Venkatappa as on their roles and to pay 100% backwages from the date of their suspension; the subsistence allowance paid during the course of domestic enquiry may be adjusted while calculating the backwages. Sri Venkatappa having died, the legal representatives were entitled for backwages and death benefits. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed W.P. No. 5878/2006, wherein the learned Single Judge by the impugned order allowed the writ petition in part. The legal representatives of the deceased Venkatappa were held to be entitled for compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The appellant was directed to pay 25% of the backwages. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the employer. 5. Shri. S.N. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants counsel, contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. He contends that even after revocation of the suspension, the workmen have not reported to duty. Hence, the question of payment of backwages does not arise. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent. 7. On hearing the learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. He contends that even after revocation of the suspension, the workmen have not reported to duty. Hence, the question of payment of backwages does not arise. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent. 7. On hearing the learned Counsel, we are of the considered view that appropriate relief requires to be granted. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the suspension order was revoked pending enquiry and thereafter the management directed the workmen to report to duty and also to do the work of negative joining. The workmen refused to report to duty. However, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the order of the Labour Court in ordering payment of full backwages is inappropriate and the management was directed to pay subsistence allowance from the date of suspension till it is revoked as per the entitlement and for the remaining period the Management was to pay 25% backwages. 8. We are unable to accept the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge in ordering 25% backwages, in the given facts and circumstances of the case. When the records would show that the revocation of suspension took place on 13.05.1992 and even thereafter the workmen refused to join duty, apparently, the appellants cannot be saddled to pay any backwages to the workmen. 9. Under these circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge in directing the appellants to pay 25% backwages, in our considered view cannot be sustained. Therefore, insofar as that portion of the order of the learned Single Judge granting 25% of the backwages is concerned, is set-aside. 10. So far as the order granting compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased Venkatappa, in view of the extent of the order that the workmen are not entitled for any backwages, the legal representatives of the deceased Venkatappa are entitled to such terminal benefits as they are entitled to, excluding backwages. 11. It is submitted by the appellant's counsel that so far as the work that was rendered by the workmen is concerned, the same is not being done by the appellants now. Therefore, under these circumstance, the appellants are permitted to accommodate the respondent-workman Basavaraj to such an equivalent post and pay as earlier. Consequently the order of the learned single Judge is accordingly modified.