JUDGMENT : These two appeals are directed against two separate judgments dated 12.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge by which two separate writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging common award dated 03.10.2013 passed by the Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'the Tribunal') thereby answering reference made to it by the appropriate Government on the question whether the order of compulsory retirement of the workman Bhagwan Singh dated 09.05.2009 was legal and valid and if not so, to what relief he was entitled to. The Tribunal under the aforesaid award declared the order of compulsory retirement of the workman to be illegal and unjustified and held the workman entitled to continuity in service. However, considering that the workman Bhagwan Singh, during pendency of reference before the Tribunal, had attained age of superannuation on 30.04.2012, the Tribunal did not direct his reinstatement, but directed that he shall be deemed to have continued in service till attaining the age of superannuation and be granted retiral benefits, but would not be entitled to any back wages. While the management challenged the award as regards the direction of the Tribunal declaring the order of compulsory retirement of the workman as illegal and granting benefit of continuity in service to the workman along with other retiral benefits by way of filing writ petition (No. 326/2014) before the learned Single Judge, the workman Bhagwan Singh filed writ petition (No. 20498/2013) seeking direction to the Management to pay him entire back wages. Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgments has dismissed both the writ petitions. 2. Mr. Hanuman Choudhary with Mr. G.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant-workman argued that once the Tribunal set aside the order of compulsory retirement of the workman dated 09.05.2009 declaring the same as illegal and held the workman entitled to other retiral benefits, there was no justification for not granting benefit of back wages. Learned counsel argued that the moment order of compulsory retirement was declared illegal and non-est, it would have been deemed that order of compulsory retirement was not passed and the workman was entitled to back wages. Learned counsel in support of their arguments relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others, (2013) 9 SCR 1 and Sambunath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, AIR 1954 SC 289. 3. Mr. Learned counsel in support of their arguments relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others, (2013) 9 SCR 1 and Sambunath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, AIR 1954 SC 289. 3. Mr. R.P. Garg with Mr. Reashm Bhargava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Management argued that the Tribunal was having no competence to go into the validity of order of compulsory retirement of the workman. Learned Single Judge committed gross error of law in observing that Management filed no application seeking permission to lead evidence and it was not in dispute that the primary cooperative society did submit any such application on 13.07.2013 and therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have permitted the Management to lead evidence. Domestic enquiry was conducted in just and fair manner. Application filed by the Cooperative Society could not have been dismissed as not maintainable. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 5. We are not inclined to uphold the argument that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to examine validity of the order of compulsory retirement of the workman. Perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal indicates that the question no. 2 referred to it was precisely to decide whether compulsory retirement of the workman by order dated 09.05.2009 was valid and legal and if not so, to what relief he was entitled to. That question has been answered by the Tribunal by detailed and reasoned award. Domestic enquiry against the workman was declared unfair by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.05.2013. The Management did not make any application before the Tribunal for adducing the evidence or otherwise did not make any such plea even in the reply to statement of claim. The Tribunal relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Lakshmidevamma and Another, AIR 2001 SC 2090 and held that unless the Management submits an application for adducing evidence or taking such plea in the reply to statement of claim, no such opportunity can be granted to it. The Tribunal even held the domestic enquiry to be unfair. The Tribunal noted that the statement of the workman was recorded before recording the statement of the department and without giving opportunity of cross-examination to the workman. The Tribunal even held the domestic enquiry to be unfair. The Tribunal noted that the statement of the workman was recorded before recording the statement of the department and without giving opportunity of cross-examination to the workman. The Tribunal also found that the President of the Society Narendra Singh Choudhary and Salesman Bhanwarlal were not allowed to be cross-examined by the workman. The Tribunal also noted that the workman was not paid subsistence allowance during period while he was facing enquiry, due to which he could produce his defence effectively. The Tribunal, thus, concluded that the domestic enquiry was held in utter breach of principle of natural justice. In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with those finding of the Tribunal. We find that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in upholding the award passed by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration the fact that the workman had not physically discharged duty during the period from the date of his compulsory retirement, i.e. 09.05.2009 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.04.2012, the Tribunal applying the principle of dies-non, did not deem it appropriate to award back wages for that period and directed that the workman was not entitled to any back wages, however, other retrial benefits shall be computed deeming as if he continued in service throughout. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld that direction contained in the award. We do not find any justification for issuing a direction for awarding back wages to the workman in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. In the result, both the special appeals fail and they are dismissed. 7. Stay Application No. 15795/2015 and 16292/2015 also stand dismissed. 8. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of connected special appeal.