JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The facts of the case have been elaborately noticed in the judgment and order under appeal. Suffice to say that the writ petition instituted by the respondent, Karmachari Sangha, espousing the cause of the workman Sri Dilip Chetry, was allowed by Judgment and Order date 26.08.2013 in WP(C) 615/2006. By the said Judgment, the Award dated 28.12.2004 of the Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 3/2004 was modified to the extent of granting 50% of the back wages in favour of the workman covering the period from the date when the said workman had been stopped from discharging duties until the date of rejoining in duties. 2. Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel representing the appellant i.e. the Management of Madhuting Tea Estate submits that the said Tea Estate was taken over by the present Management w.e.f. 22.10.2002. As regards the status of the workman, i.e. Sri Dilip Chetry, his name did not appear in the Attendance Roll and therefore the present Management was not aware of the status of the said workman. Knowledge was had about the employment of Sri Dilip Chetry by the erstwhile company only when the workman had raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer in June, 2003. According to the appellant, the workman neither informed the Management regarding his earlier employment nor approached the Management for resumption of work or to be allowed to perform his services. It transpires that the said workman was stopped from discharging duties from August, 2000. However, during the conciliation parley, the present Management, by taking a lenient view agreed to allow the workman to resume his duties. This gesture was not taken in good stead and the workman made demands for resuming his services only on payment of back wages. 3. Reference was made to the Labour Court, Dibrugarh by the Government Notification dated 13.01.2004, primarily on the following points: "(1) Whether the Management of Madhuting T.E. is justified in stopping the work of Shri Dilip Chetry a permanent staff w.e.f. August, 2000? (2) If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof?" 4. On the first reference the Labour Court opined that the Management of Madhuting Tea Estate was not justified in stopping the work of the workman. (2) If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof?" 4. On the first reference the Labour Court opined that the Management of Madhuting Tea Estate was not justified in stopping the work of the workman. In so far as the second reference point is concerned, the Labour Court accepted the contention of the Management and held that the workman was not entitled to any back wages. 5. In WP(C) 615/2006 the contentions of the rival parties were duly considered. The learned Single Judge also considered the statements of the witnesses who had deposed before the learned Labour Court. The contention of the respondents/writ petitioner that fell for consideration was to the effect that there was no termination of service of the workman and he had been illegally prevented from rendering service by the Management. 6. Ms. A. Bhattacharjee representing the respondents/writ petitioner had contended that the case of Dilip Chetry did not involve any question of reinstatement, rather it was a question on his continuation in service. As no charge of misconduct or of unauthorised absence from duty was either framed or proved against the workman, as such the workman cannot be denied back wages. A submission was made that even if a most extreme view is taken, the workman should at least be paid 50% of the back wages. This submission was made on the basis of the Apex Court's decision in Reetu Marbles v. Prabhakant Shukla, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 70 . On the proposition that the demand of back wages to a workman is not automatic and that no claim can be entertained for payments of back wages for the period of absence from work, Mr. S.N. Sarma relied upon the Apex Court's decision, primarily in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 129 and J.K. Synthetics Limited v. K.P. Agarwal and Another, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 433 and Minati Banerjee v. Union of India, reported in (2013) 3 GLR 578. 7. The point for consideration before the learned Single Judge was confined to the entitlement of the workman to back wages for the period of absence from duty. 7. The point for consideration before the learned Single Judge was confined to the entitlement of the workman to back wages for the period of absence from duty. This point was answered by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the materials available of record that the workman did not take leave but he was compelled to go on leave and thereafter not allowed to join. Finding was recorded that the Management had also admitted that the workman had never been dismissed from service but only did not come to join after availing leave. In other words, the workman was not dismissed, rather stopped from working. On this count the learned Single Judge held that the Management could have brought a charge against the workman for not attending the Office without prior approval of the authority but the same was not done. The finding of the Labour Court that for long three years the workman was absent without any authority was also held to be perverse, being contrary to the materials on record. Distinguishing on facts the Apex Court's judgment relied upon by the Management, reliance was placed in the case of Reetu Marbles (supra) to strike a balance between the two extreme views, that is, while the workman complained that he was not allowed to render service, on the other hand the stand of the Management was that the workman was on annual leave of 45 days where after he did not join duty. According to the learned Single Judge, the materials on record are inadequate to conclusively support any of the two views. A balance was struck in view of Reetu Marbles (supra) by holding that it would meet the ends of justice if the workman is paid 50% of the back wages for the period from the date of when he was stopped from working until his date of rejoining. Necessary directions were issued in that regard. 8. Mr. S.N. Sarma assails the judgment of the learned Single Judge on grounds that primarily on the principle of "no work no pay", no direction could have been issued for payment of 50% back wages. Mr. Necessary directions were issued in that regard. 8. Mr. S.N. Sarma assails the judgment of the learned Single Judge on grounds that primarily on the principle of "no work no pay", no direction could have been issued for payment of 50% back wages. Mr. Sarma also contends that the question of stoppage of work from August, 2000 is belied by the very admission of the workman who had stated that after going on annual leave of 45 days, he did not resume his duty by submitting joining report. This vital aspect of the matter, according to Mr. Sarma, had not been gone into by the learned Single Judge. 9. Ms. A. Bhattacharjee, while reiterating her stand as had been taken in the writ petition, submits that the judgment under appeal do not call for any interference. 10. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the materials on records. Apparently the workman Sri Dilip Chetry did not suffer dismissal from service and, in fact, the Labour Court itself had held that the Management was not justified in stopping Dilip Chetry from working w.e.f. August, 2000. On the question of consequential issue of reinstatement with full back wages, we agree with the view expressed by learned Single Judge that the case in hand is not a case of reinstatement in service but continuation in service. Also, the materials on record do not adequately and conclusively demonstrate whether the workman was debarred from rendering service, as alleged, or there is sufficient material vindicating the stand of the Management that the workman had gone on annual leave for 45 days where after he did not join service. In the absence of sufficient materials to support either of the views, reference placed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Reetu Marbles (supra) appears to be the correct approach. The entitlement of the workman to 50% of the back wages and the direction made in this regard to the Appellant/Management, in our considered view, do not warrant interference. The judgments referred to by Mr. Sarma before this Court are distinguishable on facts, in that, the same are cases involving termination on grounds of unauthorised absence or with regard to the concept of payment of back wages on reinstatement upon imposition of a lesser punishment and on claim for payment of back wages in a case of misconduct. The judgments referred to by Mr. Sarma before this Court are distinguishable on facts, in that, the same are cases involving termination on grounds of unauthorised absence or with regard to the concept of payment of back wages on reinstatement upon imposition of a lesser punishment and on claim for payment of back wages in a case of misconduct. The issue in hand do not involve facts of the nature as involved in the decisions cited by Mr. Sarma. 11. We record our agreement with the finding and decision of the learned Single Judge. In view thereof, the appeal being devoid of merits stands accordingly dismissed. No costs.