JUDGMENT 1. The delay of 17 days has been sufficiently explained. It has not been opposed, and is thus condoned. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. 2. The appellant terminated services of the respondent, serving as Junior Assistant, on 05.05.1986. The respondent made a reference, which was adjudicated by labour court, and which by award dated 14.09.1993, declared his termination to be illegal and held him entitled for reinstatement, continuity in service and back wages. The respondent was reinstated in service on 31.05.1995, and was granted regular pay scale w.e.f.05.11.1996. 3. The conditions of grant of regular pay scale required the Junior Assistant to pass a type test. The respondent appeared in the type test and passed the same on 21.04.1996, proving his proficiency, and his entitlement for grant of regular pay scale. He thereafter, demanded regular pay scale with effect from the date, when his services were terminated. The demand was not accepted, on which he raised another industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the labour court. 4. By an award dated 16.09.2013, the labour court found that the respondent was entitled to regular pay scale, with effect from the date, his services were terminated, inasmuch as he had proved his proficiency, by clearing the type test, after he was reinstated, and in which he had appeared on 21.04.1996. 5. The labour court found that the respondent could not be asked to perform the impossible, by clearing the type test, when he was not in employment. The award passed by the labour court, by which he was reinstated in service, with full back wages, entitled him to the regular pay scale, provided he had passed the type test, which he cleared on 21.04.1996. The labour court thus, passed an award, declaring that the employer, Chairman & Managing Director of RIICO, was not justified in denying the regular pay scale to the respondent, with effect from 01.02.1988, and made him entitled to the regular pay scale with effect from that date. 6. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, against the award, on the ground that had the petitioner not been terminated, by the respondent, he would have appeared in the type test alongwith his juniors, and passed the same. 6. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, against the award, on the ground that had the petitioner not been terminated, by the respondent, he would have appeared in the type test alongwith his juniors, and passed the same. Now since the respondent had passed the type test, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding him entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date his juniors were granted such pay scale. 7. We do not find any error in the award passed by the Tribunal and the judgment of learned Single Judge, upholding the award, inasmuch as once the respondent was reinstated with full back wages, and all entitlements, he was also entitled to be given the regular pay scale, subject to his passing the type test, which he had cleared on 21.04.1996. The insistence that he should have passed the type test, while he was not in employment, is something, which was not possible to be performed by him, as he was not in employment. We do not find any merit in this Special Appeal. 8. The Special Appeal is dismissed.