JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner workman has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 25 of 1998 dated 3/2/2004 in so far as awarding only 25% back wags from the date of termination till reinstatement that too, at the same rate which was being paid to the workman at the time of his termination. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the services of the petitioner workman came to be terminated in January, 1997 and the impugned judgment and award has been passed by the Labour Court dated 3/2/2004. 1.1. At this stage it is also required to be noted that so far as the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court is concerned, it has attained finality so far as the respondent employer is concerned. Therefore, the issue which survives to be decided in the present petition is denial of back wages to the workman. 1.2. Mr. Arvind Thakur, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that as such the learned Labour Court has materially erred indemnifying 75% back wages. It is submitted that once the termination is held to be illegal, back wages follow. In support of his above submissions, he has heavily relied upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Ravindran v. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, AIR 2015 SC 2369 . 1.3. Mr. Arvind Thakur, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - workman has further submitted that even the grounds/reasons on which the Labour Court has awarded only 25% back wages is not tenable. It is submitted that merely because after termination for survival the workman has done some work, the same is no ground to deny full back wages to the workman. It is submitted that, as such and in fact, the petitioner tried to get job in other Companies, however, he failed to get any job. 1.4. Mr. It is submitted that merely because after termination for survival the workman has done some work, the same is no ground to deny full back wages to the workman. It is submitted that, as such and in fact, the petitioner tried to get job in other Companies, however, he failed to get any job. 1.4. Mr. Arvind Thakur, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that even awarding 25% back wages, as ordered by the learned Labour Court and that too, considering the wages drawn by the workman at the time when he was terminated i.e. in the year 1997 also cannot be sustained. It is submitted that once the termination is held to be illegal and the workman is entitled to back wages. He has submitted that the workman is entitled to back wages with all other evidence like increase in the pay/revision of pay scale etc. It is submitted that, therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to full back wages with revision/increase in pay etc. and other monetary consequential benefits and with continuity of service etc. 2. Present petition is opposed by Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly when in the deposition a question was put to the workman that by doing work, he was getting Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000 per month and even the workman has admitted that that to maintain his family, Rs. 2000 is required, more particularly when the workman remained absent for approximately 17 months prior to termination, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Labour Court has not committed any error in awarding 25% back wages only (denying 75% back wages). It is submitted that cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Labour Court while awarding 25% back wages, which are not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, Ms. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent is not in a position to satisfy the court as to how the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court in so far as granting 25% back wages considering the wages paid to the workman at the time of his termination in the year 1997, can be sustained. 3. Bhaya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent is not in a position to satisfy the court as to how the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court in so far as granting 25% back wages considering the wages paid to the workman at the time of his termination in the year 1997, can be sustained. 3. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 3.1. As observed hereinabove, the only question which is required to be considered by this Court in the present petition is denial of back wages to the petitioner workman to the extent of 75%, as by the impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal/Labour Court has awarded only 25% back wages, that too, at the wages which was being paid to the petitioner workman at the time of his termination i.e. in the year 1997. As observed hereinabove, the date of termination is 28/1/1997 and the date of judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is 3/2/2004. In the meantime and during the interregnum period of 7 (seven) years, there might be release of increment and/or grant of revision of pay/wages. Considering the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court awarding 75% back wages only, it appears that what has weighed with the learned Labour Court is the question put to the workman in his cross-examination that he was warning Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000 per month. However, it is required to be noted that the workman has denied the said question and has specifically denied that after his termination he was earning Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000 per month. Merely asking a question is not enough or sufficient to deny back wages on the aforesaid ground. In the cross-examination the workman has specifically denied that by doing some work he was earning Rs. 2000 to Rs. 3000. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions and more particularly in the recent decision in the case of K.S. Ravindran v. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited (supra), once termination is held to be illegal, necessary consequences of wages, revision of pay etc. must follow. Even otherwise, merely because after the termination, for survival and/or maintaining his family, if some work/labour work is done, the same is no ground to deny virtually entire back wages. must follow. Even otherwise, merely because after the termination, for survival and/or maintaining his family, if some work/labour work is done, the same is no ground to deny virtually entire back wages. Even otherwise, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court even granting 25% back wages only that too at the rate which the workman was getting at the time of termination, cannot be sustained. As observed hereinabove, during the period from year 1997 to 2004, there must be increase in pay, pay revision and/or increment, etc. which cannot be denied to the petitioner workman while awarding back wages. There is no justification whatsoever even granting 25% back wages that too considering the wages which was being paid to the workman at the time of his termination. In the case of K.S. Ravindran v. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, calculating the same on the basis of increase/revision of pay of the workman and other consequential benefits. 3.2. At the same time, considering the fact that the petitioner workman remained absent for approximately 17 years prior to termination, of course, the termination is held to be illegal, the petitioner cannot be awarded full/100% back wages. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is awarded 75% back wages, it will meet the ends of justice. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court is required to be modified. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (LCJ) No. 25 of 1998 dated 3/2/2004 is hereby modified to the extent awarding 75% back wages (instead of 25% back wages) from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, calculating the same on the basis of increase and/or revision of pay of the workman and other consequential benefits and the same be paid to the petitioner workman with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum at the earliest. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.