JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Both the petitions arise from one and the same award, as such, same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of vide this common judgment. CWP No. 6498 of 2010 has been filed by M/s Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd and CWP No. 6772 of 2011 has been filed by Shri Prabhakar Singh, both against Award dated 16.6.2010 passed by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala (HP) in Ref. No. 56/2002. However, for the sake of clarity, facts are being discussed from CWP No. 6772 of 2011 and parties shall be referred to as per status in this petition i.e. Prabhakar Singh as, 'workman' and M/s Nipso Poly Fabricks Ltd. as 'employer'. 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 w.e.f. 28.11.1998 of Sh. Prabhakar Singh S/o Shri Bhagwat Singh by M/s. Nipso Poly Fabriks Ltd. Mehatpur is legal and justified? If not, to what back wages, seniority, service benefit and relief the concerned workman is entitled to?" 3. Workman, by way of statement of claim, stated before the learned Tribunal below that he was appointed by the employer on 13.8.1993 and as such he worked for five years, thereafter he was designated as Helper on 13.8.1993 and after serving for five years, he was further promoted as Senior Helper on 1.6.1997. His services were illegally terminated on 28.11.1998. Workman claimed that since he was elected as Member of the Executive Committee of Worker's Union namely Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh, and he served a demand charter on 9.12.1997 upon the employer in the interests of the workers, as a result of which, his services were terminated by the employer without resorting to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. Workman also claimed that his termination on 28.11.1998 is in violation of Section 9A and Section 33 A of the Act, because at the time of termination, dispute was pending conciliation. As per workman, dispute was pending before Labour Inspector, Una and even before the Labour Court where workman had filed appropriate application for release of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the proceedings. As per workman, dispute was pending before Labour Inspector, Una and even before the Labour Court where workman had filed appropriate application for release of subsistence allowance during the pendency of the proceedings. Workman further claimed that the charge-sheet having been filed by the employer against workman was a counter blast to his Union activities and same was based on false and fabricated allegations and at no point of time, inquiry, if any, was conducted by the employer before issuance of charge sheet against the workman. Workman further termed the inquiry to be illegal because inquiry officer failed to prescribe any proper procedure for inquiry and no opportunity, whatsoever, was granted to the workman. Workman, further claimed that he was condemned unheard as he was not afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. 4. Employer, by way of detailed reply, refuted the contentions having been put forth on behalf of the workman. Employer submitted before the learned Tribunal below that since the workman had committed misconduct, he was served with a memo of charge sheet containing eight different allegations. Employer further stated that amongst other charges against the workman, he was also found responsible for having used filthy language against his superiors during the course of his duty. Moreover, he was also found to have manhandled security guard on duty. Since offence of the workman was serious and grave in nature, management lodged complaint with the police, which was later on followed by a domestic inquiry, conducted by an independent agency. Employer further claimed before the learned Tribunal below that the workman was afforded to avail opportunity of defending himself, either himself or through a person of his own choice. Similarly, employer refuted claim of the workman that there was a dispute pending before any authority. As per employer, provisions of Sections 9A and 33A were not violated, as such, claim of the workman deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned Tribunal below, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues: "1. Whether the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 28.11.1998 by the respondent is illegal and unjustified, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.(1) is proved in affirmative to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 3. Whether reference is bad as alleged? OPR 4. Whether petition is bad for non-implementing proper necessary parties as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 28.11.1998 by the respondent is illegal and unjustified, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.(1) is proved in affirmative to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 3. Whether reference is bad as alleged? OPR 4. Whether petition is bad for non-implementing proper necessary parties as alleged? OPR 5. Whether petitioner was terminated after holding domestic inquiry against his grave misconduct, if so it s effect? OPR 6. Whether domestic inquiry conducted by the respondent against the petitioner is against the principle of natural justice as alleged? OPR 7. Relief." 6. Subsequently, the learned Tribunal below, vide Award dated 16.6.2010, allowed the reference and held the termination of the workman to be bad and accordingly, quashed the same. Learned Tribunal below while allowing claim of the petitioner, directed the employer to reengage him forthwith along with continuity in service and seniority from the date of termination but without any back wages. In the aforesaid background, these two writ petitions came to be filed i.e. one by workman for grant of back wages, and another by the employer against reinstatement with benefit of continuity in service and seniority, praying for following reliefs: CWP No. 6498 of 2010 "(i) That a writ of certiorari may very kindly be issued thereby quashing the impugned award passed by Respondent NO.1 (Annexure P-7) as well as reference." CWP No. 6772 of 2011 "a) Writ of Certiorari may kindly be issued modifying the Award dated 16.6.2010, passed by respondent No. 2 in reference titled as Prabhakar Singh v. Managing Director, M/S Nipso Poly Fabriks Ltd. by granting the back wages in totality ( 100%) to the petitioner from the date of his illegal termination till reinstatement." 7. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel representing the employer, vehemently argued that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel representing the employer, vehemently argued that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Thakur, while referring to the award having been passed by the learned Tribunal below vehemently argued that learned Tribunal below failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a result of which, erroneous findings have come on record to the detriment of the employer, which successfully proved on record that domestic inquiry against workman was conducted strictly in accordance with law. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Thakur invited attention of this Court to the award passed by the Tribunal below, to demonstrate that even the workman, while making statement as PW-1, before the Tribunal, admitted termination of workman on the basis of domestic inquiry conducted by the employer, and as such, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal below to conclude that domestic inquiry conducted by the employer against the workman was arbitrary, illegal, unjust and employer failed to prove that the workman committed grave misconduct entailing termination. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Thakur, prayed for allowing CWP No. 6498 of 2010 and for setting aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal below. Mr. Thakur, vehemently argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned award passed by learned Tribunal below to the extent of denying back wages to the workman, 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 v. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2014 AIR SCW 3157. 8. Mr. Kunal Verma, learned counsel representing the workman supported the impugned award passed by the Tribunal below to the extent of reinstatement of workman. Mr. In this regard he placed reliance upon judgment passed in case Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2014 AIR SCW 3157. 8. Mr. Kunal Verma, learned counsel representing the workman supported the impugned award passed by the Tribunal below to the extent of reinstatement of workman. Mr. Verma, strenuously argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award as far as reinstatement of workman is concerned because, perusal of award as well as pleadings available on record clearly suggest that employer was not able to prove on record that domestic inquiry against the workman was conducted strictly in accordance with law as workman was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Verma invited attention of this Court to the impugned award to demonstrate that only photocopies of inquiry report, postal receipts, statements of witnesses and proceedings of inquiry Ext. RW-1/B were placed on record and no original documents were ever produced on record by the officials of the employer. He also invited attention of this Court to document Ext. P1/L i.e. copy of inquiry report, to suggest that same was not signed by inquiry officer. Similarly, Mr. Verma, further stated that though employer examined one Shri Ram Dutt Sharma, Manager, to support their claim in the reply, but unfortunately, the affidavit tendered by said witness was not signed and as such documents placed on record along with same, were rightly not considered by the Tribunal below. Mr. Verma, further contended that once learned Tribunal below, on the basis of material adduced before it by the respective parties, set aside termination of the workman and had directed reinstatement with continuity in service and seniority, learned Tribunal below, ought to have granted back wages as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Verma, prayed that impugned award may be modified and workman be held entitled for back wages from the date of his termination till his reinstatement. Mr. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Verma, prayed that impugned award may be modified and workman be held entitled for back wages from the date of his termination till his reinstatement. Mr. Verma further stated that reasoning given by the learned Tribunal below while denying back wages to the petitioner is not sustainable because back wages could not be denied to the workman, solely on the allegations contained in the FIR lodged by the management stating therein that workman manhandled security guard, rather learned Tribunal below while deciding the issue of back wages was to examine whether during the period of retrenchment, employer had sufficient work and whether workman was prevented from doing such work. 9. I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and also gone through the Award and records. 10. During proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse pleadings of the parties as well as documents available on record, perusal whereof clearly shows that there is no illegality or infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal below, whereby it concluded that employer has failed to prove that the workman had committed grave misconduct entailing his termination. Close scrutiny of reasoning rendered by the learned Tribunal below while passing impugned award further suggests that the employer failed to prove on record that domestic inquiry against workman was conducted in accordance with law. The impugned award clearly suggests that employer only placed certain photocopies of documents including inquiry report, postal receipts, statements of witnesses and proceedings of inquiry as RW-1/B and no original documents were placed on record to prove that inquiry pertaining to complaint having been lodged against workman was conducted in a lawful manner. Impugned award further suggests that aforesaid documents as referred to herein above were neither brought on record by any official witness nor they were tendered in evidence by the employer. Apart from above, Shri Ram Dutt Sharma, Manager appeared as RW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ext. RW-1/A without appending his signatures. True, it is that by way of aforesaid affidavit he placed on record letter dated 7.4.1998, as Ext. RW-1-RX/B and copy of charge sheet Ext. Apart from above, Shri Ram Dutt Sharma, Manager appeared as RW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ext. RW-1/A without appending his signatures. True, it is that by way of aforesaid affidavit he placed on record letter dated 7.4.1998, as Ext. RW-1-RX/B and copy of charge sheet Ext. RW1-RX/A but even along with same, other documents i.e. inquiry report and proceedings of inquiry and copies of statements of witnesses were not tendered or exhibited by the employer during the proceedings before the learned Tribunal below, whereas workman himself placed on record copy of inquiry report, Ext. P1/L, which was also not signed by inquiry officer. Most interestingly, charge sheet i.e. RW1-RX/A placed on record by the employer suggests that as much as seven charges were levelled against the workman, whereas, inquiry report placed on record clearly suggests that though inquiry officer held workman guilty of seven charges, but discussion only qua Charge No.1 was made by the inquiry officer while submitting his report. Similarly, learned Tribunal below has noticed that as per Ext. RW1- RX/A, one Shri R.K. Kaushal, Assistant Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer but RW-1 while making deposition before the learned Tribunal below feigned ignorance with regard to identity of inquiry officer. Aforesaid RK Kaushal was complainant in the FIR lodged against workman and it is not understood, how he could be appointed as inquiry officer in the domestic inquiry initiated against the workman. 11. Accordingly, in view of the above, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the findings returned by the learned Tribunal below while concluding that employer failed to prove misconduct of the workman before the Court below. Since employer failed to prove on record that domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with law, learned Tribunal below rightly came to the conclusion that workman was not given opportunity of defending himself as stated in the statement of claim and thus inquiry was irregular and illegal. 12. 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. 12. 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. 13. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, 2014 (6) SLR 6 (S.C.), wherein the Court held: "39. 13. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raghubir Singh v. 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 , 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. 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. 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. 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 practise. 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 practise. 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. 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) 14. 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) 14. 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 along with benefit of continuity in service and seniority, as such, impugned award deserves to be modified accordingly. 15. As far as judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. 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 while 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. 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. 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. 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." 16. 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 along with 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 v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar. 17. 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 v. M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. (supra). 18. Consequently, in view of above, CWP No. 6772 of 2011 is allowed. Award dated 16.6.2010 passed by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala (HP) in Ref. No. 56/2002, 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 his reinstatement. 19. Award dated 16.6.2010 passed by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala (HP) in Ref. No. 56/2002, 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 his reinstatement. 19. CWP No. 6498 of 2010 is accordingly dismissed. 20. Pending applications in both the petitions are disposed of.