JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By way of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-workman (herein after, “workman”) has laid challenge to Award dated 4.12.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala in Ref. No. 74/2006, whereby the learned Tribunal below though has granted benefit of continuity in service and seniority from the date of illegal termination of the workman but has denied the back-wages. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that appropriate Government made following terms of reference under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court: “Whether the termination of services of Shri Kulvinder Singh S/o Shri Preetpal Singh workman by the M/s Cousins Gun Manufacturers Mandi, H.P. w.e.f. 20.5.2004 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as alleged by the workman is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 3. Workman, in his statement of claim before the learned Tribunal below stated that he was appointed as a Driver by the respondent-management (herein after, “management”) in the year 1998 and as such he continued to work till 20.5.2004, whereafter his services were terminated by the management orally, without issuance of any notice. Since workman had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year, his services could not be terminated without resorting to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Record further reveals that when the workman raised industrial dispute before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Management issued a notice alongwith cheque amounting to Rs.2815/- in favour of the workman virtually in compliance of Section 25 (F) of the Act, however, the fact remains that the same was not accepted by the workman. In the aforesaid background, workman claimed before the Tribunal that he be ordered to be re-engaged forthwith in the same capacity as he was working earlier alongwith consequential benefits including back-wages. 4. It also emerges from the record that despite various opportunities to the Management, it failed to file any reply to the statement of claim filed by the workman, as such, claim was decided on the basis of material adduced on record by workman. 4. It also emerges from the record that despite various opportunities to the Management, it failed to file any reply to the statement of claim filed by the workman, as such, claim was decided on the basis of material adduced on record by workman. Workman while examining himself as PW-1 specifically stated that he was appointed as a Driver by the Management in the year 1998 and thereafter, he worked uninterruptedly till 20.5.2004, when his services were all of a sudden terminated without resorting to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. It is also stated that he has completed more than 240 days in each calendar year during his service with the Management. In support of his aforesaid claim, he also examined one Shri Manohar Lal as PW-2, who also corroborated version having been put forth by the workman that workman was working as Driver with the management from 1998 till 2004, when his services were terminated by the Management. As has been observed above that the Management despite sufficient opportunities, failed to file reply, as a result of which averments made in the statement of claim and statement having been made by the workman during the proceedings before the learned Tribunal below, remained unrebutted and learned Tribunal below rightly presumed and inferred that the workman had worked continuously and uninterruptedly with the Management since 1998 and his services were illegally terminated by the Management without following provisions of Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such his termination was rightly quashed and set aside. At this stage, it may be taken note of as also clearly emerges from the Award passed by learned Tribunal below that when workman raised industrial dispute before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Management, in semblance of compliance of Section 25 (F) of the Act, issued a notice alongwith cheque of Rs.2815/- to the workman, which was not accepted/ withdrawn by the workman, meaning thereby that there was admission on the part of the Management as far as non-compliance of Section 25 (F) of the Act at the time of termination of services of workman is concerned. By way of impugned Award, learned Tribunal below while accepting the claim having been put forth by the workman, directed the Management to reengage the workman at same place and in the same post, against which workman was working with the Management at the time of his illegal termination. Award further suggests that workman was also held entitled to benefit of continuity in service and seniority from the date of his illegal termination, but he was not granted any back wages. In the aforesaid background, being aggrieved with the denial of back wages by the learned Tribunal below, workman approached this Court seeking following main relief: “ (ii) Allow the present Civil Writ Petition and the petitioner may also be held entitled to full back wages while reinstating his services with seniority and other consequential service benefits from the date of his illegal termination i.e. 20-05- 2010 with cost through out.” 5. Since the management has not laid any challenge to the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below whereby direction has been issued for reinstatement of workman with benefit of continuity in service and seniority, Award has attained finality to that extent qua the Management. 6. Mr. V.B. Verma, learned counsel representing the workman vehemently argued that the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below denying back wages to the workman is illegal and against the law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of cases, wherein it has been categorically held that once workman is entitled to the benefit of continuity in service and seniority, he is also entitled to back wages and as such Award deserves to be modified. Mr. Verma, further contended that the learned Tribunal below has failed to appreciate that the onus to prove that workman was not gainfully employed during the period of termination was not upon the workman but the same was upon the Management, which claimed that during the period of retrenchment, workman remained gainfully employed. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid plea, he made this Court to travel through the records of the case to demonstrate that at no point of time, Management was able to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that the workman was gainfully employed during the period of retrenchment and as such impugned award having been passed by learned Tribunal below deserves to be modified. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Verma, further contended that despite there being order of reinstatement passed by learned Tribunal below, Management has not reengaged the workman, as such impugned award is harsh, inequitable and unfair to the workman especially for the reasons that after passing Award, substantial justice has eluded the workman since neither the workman has been reinstated nor he has been paid for the period. 7. Mr. B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, Advocate, supported the award passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Mr. Chauhan, vehemently argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below as the same is based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the parties and as such there is no scope of interference by this Court, especially in view of the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal below. In this regard he placed reliance upon judgment passed in case Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2014 AIR SCW 3157. While refuting the contentions having been put forth on behalf of the learned counsel representing the petitioner, that onus was upon the Management to prove that workman was not gainfully employed during the period of retrenchment, Mr. Chauhan, strenuously argued that as per settled law, onus is always upon the person, who claims wages for the period of retrenchment, to prove that during the period of termination, he was not gainfully employed at some other place and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below as far as denial of back wages is concerned. Mr. Chauhan, further contended that since the respondent Unit is closed for the reasons beyond the control of the Management, services of workman could not be reengaged and as such there is no disobedience on the part of the Management, as alleged by the workman. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Chauhan also invited attention of this Court to the judgment having been passed by the Apex Court in T.N. Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Assn. V. LIC, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 366 , to suggest that considering the hardships of the respondent- Management, workman may not be held entitled to back wages. 8. I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and also gone through the Award and records. 9. V. LIC, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 366 , to suggest that considering the hardships of the respondent- Management, workman may not be held entitled to back wages. 8. I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and also gone through the Award and records. 9. At the risk of repetition, it may be reiterated that there is no challenge to the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below by the respondent-Management, whereby workman has been held entitled to reinstatement with benefit of continuity in service and seniority, as such to that extent, award has attained finality qua the Management. Since no challenge has been laid to the impugned award by the Management, it can be safely inferred that for all intents and purposes, Management has accepted the workman to be in continuous service, who was admittedly appointed as Driver in the year 1998 and continued to work as such till 20.5.2004, when his services were illegally terminated by the Management, without resorting to the provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act. 10. After perusing the pleadings as well as Award, this Court sees substantial force in the claim of the workman that he could not be denied back wages, especially when on the basis of the evidence adduced on record learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the termination is bad being in violation of various provision of the Act, learned Tribunal could not deny the benefit of back wages, especially when the petitioner was granted the benefits of continuity in service and seniority. The benefit of continuity in service and seniority could only be granted by the Court if it was satisfied that workman/petitioner was not allowed to work during the retrenchment period despite there being sufficient work available with the management. In the present case, learned Tribunal while holding the termination of the petitioner bad came to the conclusion that the termination was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act, meaning thereby, learned Tribunal was convinced that after retrenchment of the petitioner, work was available but for some extraneous reasons services of the petitioner were terminated without resorting to provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act. Otherwise, also this Court after perusing the evidence as has been discussed above is fully convinced that the respondent-company was unable to prove that at the time of retrenchment of the petitioner, no work was available and no persons junior to him were retained. Once, the petitioner was able to prove on record that at the time of his termination, no procedure as prescribed under Industrial Disputes Act, was followed, learned Tribunal below ought to have granted back wages also. Apart from above, when learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence held the petitioner entitled to benefit of continuity in service and seniority, there was no occasion whatsoever, to deny the benefit of back wages because benefit of continuity of service could only be granted, if tribunal was satisfied that during retrenchment period petitioner was purposely stopped from discharging his duty despite there being availability of sufficient work. 11. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, 2014 (6) SLR 6 (S.C.), wherein the Court held: “39. Now, it is necessary for this Court to examine another aspect of the case on hand, whether the appellant is entitled for reinstatement, back wages and the other consequential benefits. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase V. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed) and Ors., (2013)10 SCC 324 : [ 2013 (6) SLR 642 (SC), this Court opined as under:- “22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments. 23. A somewhat similar issue was considered by a three Judge Bench in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra)......The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings. If thus the employer is found to be in the wrong as a result of which the workman is directed to be reinstated, the employer could not shirk his responsibility of paying the wages which the workman has been deprived of by the illegal or invalid action of the employer. Speaking realistically, where termination of service is questioned as invalid or illegal and the workman has to go through the gamut of litigation, his capacity to sustain himself throughout the protracted litigation is itself such an awesome factor that he may not survive to see the day when relief is granted. Speaking realistically, where termination of service is questioned as invalid or illegal and the workman has to go through the gamut of litigation, his capacity to sustain himself throughout the protracted litigation is itself such an awesome factor that he may not survive to see the day when relief is granted. More so in our system where the law's proverbial delay has become stupefying. If after such a protracted time and energy consuming litigation during which period the workman just sustains himself, ultimately he is to be told that though he will be reinstated, he will be denied the back wages which would be due to him, the workman would be subjected to a sort of penalty for no fault of his and it is wholly undeserved. Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule. Any other view would be a premium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer. If the employer terminates the service illegally and the termination is motivated as in this case viz. to resist the workmen's demand for revision of wages, the termination may well amount to unfair labour practice. In such circumstances reinstatement being the normal rule, it should be followed with full back wages..... In the very nature of things there cannot be a strait-jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on the face of the record. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the Rules of reason and justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular..... 24. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the Rules of reason and justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular..... 24. Another three Judge Bench considered the same issue in Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi (supra) and observed: Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too......In such and other exceptional cases the court may mould the relief, but, ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted.” (Emphasis supplied by this Court) 12. Hence, this Court after carefully going through the aforesaid judgment having been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, has no hesitation to conclude that learned Tribunal below erred in not granting back wages to the workman, while extending him benefit of reinstatement alongwith benefit of continuity in service and seniority, as such, impugned award deserves to be modified accordingly. Aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2016) 3 SCC 340 and (2016) 6 SCC 541 . 13. As far as judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. is concerned, there can not be any quarrel with the settled proposition of law that the Courts while examining correctness and genuineness of the Award passed by Tribunal has very limited powers to appreciate the evidence adduced before the Tribunal below, especially the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal below and same can not be questioned in writ proceedings and writ court can not act as an appellate Court. Careful perusal of aforesaid judgment having been relied upon by the learned counsel representing the Management, clearly suggests that error of law which is apparent on the face of record can be corrected by writ Court but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held in the aforesaid judgment that if finding of fact is based upon no evidence that would be recorded as error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that in regard to findings of fact recorded by Tribunal, writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording said findings, tribunal erroneously refused to admit admissible evidence or erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which influenced impugned findings. It would be profitable to reproduce following paras of the judgment: “16. ………The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is no entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened for questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the interference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised. 14. Perusal of aforesaid findings returned by the Hon'ble Apex Court nowhere completely bars jurisdiction of writ Court to examine the correctness and genuineness of the Award having been passed by the Tribunal especially when there is an error of law apparent on the face of record. In the instant case, as has been discussed in detail, learned Tribunal below could not have denied benefit of back wages to the workman, especially when Tribunal, on the basis of material, came to the conclusion that the workman is entitled to reinstatement alongwith benefit of continuity in service and seniority. Once, the learned Tribunal below had come to the conclusion that the workman is entitled to the benefit of continuity in service and seniority, it ought to have granted benefit of back wages as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar. 15. Once, the learned Tribunal below had come to the conclusion that the workman is entitled to the benefit of continuity in service and seniority, it ought to have granted benefit of back wages as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Raghubir Singh vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar. 15. Hence, this Court is of the view that learned Tribunal below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and erroneously refused to admit admissible claim of the workman and as such this Court has the jurisdiction to correct the same while exercising writ jurisdiction as laid down in case Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. (supra). 16. Consequently, in view of above, the Award dated 4.12.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala in Ref. No. 74/2006, is modified to the extent of denying back wages to the workman. Workman is held entitled to the 50% of the back wages from the date of illegal retrenchment till the date of passing of the Award by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court below. 17. Pending applications are disposed of.