ORDER : Paresh Upadhyay, J. Both these petitions are directed against the award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot dated 23.08.2013 in Reference (LCR) No.181 of 2005. By the said award, the Labour Court has set aside the termination order dated 24.10.1989 but has not granted any relief to the workman. That is how the employer and the workman both have challenged the said award. The employer - S.T. Corporation has challenged the said award to the extent the termination is set aside in Special Civil Application No.14137 of 2014, and the workman has challenged the same in Special Civil Application No.10684 of 2014 to the extent of denial of any relief by the Labour Court even after succeeding before it. 2. 2. Heard learned advocates. 3. Relevant facts as emerging from the record are as under. 3.1 The workman had joined the service of the Corporation as a Conductor on 20.05.1977. He was terminated on 24.10.1989. The cause to terminate his service was his alleged unauthorised absence from 01.07.1989 to 09.08.1989. This was challenged by the workman initially before the Civil Court and continued the said litigation before a wrong forum. Ultimately he approached the right forum in the year 2005 and the said reference came to be decided by the impugned award dated 23.08.2013. 3.2 The Labour Court has found that the termination was illegal and has set aside it. During the pendency of the Reference, the workman attained the age of superannuation in the month of August, 2005. Taking note of this, the Labour Court did not pass any order for reinstatement, but granted benefit upto 24.10.1989 i.e. the date of termination, and thereby in substance, did not grant any relief to the workman, though the termination was held to be illegal. 3.3 It is this award which is challenged by both the parties. 4. Mr.Joshi, learned advocate for the employer - Corporation has submitted that, the workman was dismissed for proved misconduct and the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the said termination. It is further submitted that the workman had approached the Labour Court in the year 2005 and therefore this period should operate against the workman and the Corporation should not be fastened with any liability for that period. It is submitted that the petition filed by the Corporation be allowed and that by the workman be dismissed. It is further submitted that the workman had approached the Labour Court in the year 2005 and therefore this period should operate against the workman and the Corporation should not be fastened with any liability for that period. It is submitted that the petition filed by the Corporation be allowed and that by the workman be dismissed. 5.1 On the other hand, Mr.Pandya, learned advocate for the workman has submitted that, the workman had not committed any misconduct and even if the case of the Corporation is accepted on its face value, it was absence for a period of about 40 days and the workman could not have been terminated from service for the said misconduct. It is submitted that the workman had immediately challenged the said order, but he was agitating the issue before the Civil Court and having realised that he should file Reference before the Labour Court, he had approached the Labour Court and the Reference was registered as Reference (LCR) No.181 of 2005. It is submitted that this is not the case where the workman slept over his right and therefore this factor should not weigh against the workman. It is submitted that the workman could not have been terminated for the absence of about 40 days and thus the Labour Court has rightly set aside the said termination and this Court may not interfere. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation v. Ramjibhai Hirabhai Rabari recorded on Letters Patent Appeal No.1009 of 2014 dated 25.11.2014. It is submitted that the petition filed by the Corporation be dismissed. 5.2 Coming to the next question of consequential benefits, learned advocate for workman has further submitted that, the Labour Court should have allowed full back wages to the workman and all consequential benefits from the date of retirement were also required to be paid to the workman. It is submitted that though the Labour Court has adjudicated the Reference in favour of the workman, no relief is granted and to that extent, interference of this Court is required. It is submitted that the petition filed by the workman be allowed. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the following decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. It is submitted that the petition filed by the workman be allowed. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the following decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. (i) Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 . (ii) Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Limited, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 85 . (iii) Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar reported in (2014) 10 SCC 301 . (iv) Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 458 . 6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 6.1 The workman had joined the service of the Corporation as a Conductor on 20.05.1977. He was terminated on 24.10.1989. The cause to terminate his service was his alleged unauthorised absence from 01.07.1989 to 09.08.1989. The said termination was the punishment disproportionate to the misconduct and therefore it was unsustainable in law. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1009 of 2014 dated 25.11.2014 referred above would support the contention on behalf of the workman. The Labour Court has held that the said termination was illegal. The finding of the Labour Court in that regard need not be interfered with. The petition filed by the Corporation therefore needs to be dismissed. 6.2 Coming to the next question as to what consequential relief should have been granted to the workman, this Court has considered the operative part of impugned award of the Labour Court. On one hand the Labour Court has held that the termination dated 24.10.1989 was illegal and at the same time, the Labour Court directed that all the benefits till 24.10.1989 be paid to the workman. Thus, even after having found and held that the termination was illegal, the Labour Court, in substance, did not grant any relief. That part of the award needs to be interfered with by this Court. Keeping in view the law annunciated in the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India as noted in para : 5.2 above, this Court finds that, there is no reason to deny back wages to the workman. There is nothing on record to suggest that the employer had even attempted to contend that the workman was gainfully employed in the interregnum. There is nothing on record to suggest that the employer had even attempted to contend that the workman was gainfully employed in the interregnum. As the necessary consequence therefore, back wages and retiral benefits need to be granted to the workman. 6.3 At this stage, learned advocate for the workman, on instructions, has stated that, since the workman is very aged, with a view to see that the litigation rests at this stage and for that reason, he would forgo the back wages if the Corporation does not drag him into further litigation. It is however submitted by him that, the workman should be considered to have been reinstated with continuity of service and considering that period, his terminal benefits should be paid to him from 31.08.2005, on which date he would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation. While recording the final order, the above concession given on behalf of the workman is kept in view. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 7.1 Special Civil Application No.14137 of 2014 filed by the Corporation is dismissed. 7.2 Special Civil Application No.10684 of 2014 filed by the workman is allowed. 7.3 The impugned award of the Labour Court is confirmed to the extent it has set aside the termination order impugned before it. 7.4 The impugned award of the Labour Court is set aside to the extent it has denied consequential relief to the workman and is modified to the extent that, the workman shall be treated to be in service till his date of retirement. His all retiral dues shall be calculated and paid within a period of three months from today. 7.5 The Corporation is under legal obligation to pay back wages to the workman from the date of termination to the date of his retirement, however in view of the concession given on behalf of workman, as noted in para : 6.3, it is directed that the workman shall not insist for the back wages from the date of his termination till the date of his retirement. It is clarified that the said concession would not bind the workman, in the event he is dragged into further litigation by the Corporation. 7.6 Rule is made absolute in Special Civil Application No.10684 of 2014. Rule is discharged in Special Civil Application No.14137 of 2014. No order as to costs. It is clarified that the said concession would not bind the workman, in the event he is dragged into further litigation by the Corporation. 7.6 Rule is made absolute in Special Civil Application No.10684 of 2014. Rule is discharged in Special Civil Application No.14137 of 2014. No order as to costs. Writ Petition of workman allowed.