ORDER : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 31.08.2010 passed in Reference No. 27/2009. 2. The respondent was working as a conductor in the petitioner-Corporation. On the allegation that at the time of checking the tickets, he had not issued the tickets as indicated in the charge sheet, a charge sheet was issued to the respondent, an enquiry was held and by the order, dated 16.10.2006, the petitioner-Corporation dismissed the respondent from its services. The respondent had raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Bijapur, in Reference No. 27/2009. The Labour Court after considering all aspects of the matter has by the award, dated 31.08.2010 set aside the order of punishment dated 16.10.2006 and directed reinstatement with all benefits. The petitioner-Corporation claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 4. Insofar as the consideration as made, it is to be noticed that the validity of the domestic enquiry was treated as a preliminary issue and by the order, dated 02.08.2010 the same was held in the negative against the Management. The petitioner-Management no doubt thereafter examined the witness MW-1 and marked the documents at Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.37. In the light of the said evidence tendered, the evidence of the workman was marked as WW-1 and the documents relied as Ex.W1 to Ex.W3 and the Labour Court has ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the charge was not established. While considering this aspect of the matter, the Labour Court has taken into consideration the nature of the charge alleged that at the time of the inspection being carried in the bus there were 22+0+3 persons. Though it was contended by the petitioner-Corporation with regard to non-issue of tickets, the Labour Court has taken note of the evidence and has thereafter arrived at the conclusion that the charge alleged against the petitioner has not been proved. Notwithstanding that the Labour Court in that light has arrived at the conclusion, another aspect which is a legal contention that has been urged by the respondent herein is also that an industrial dispute in Reference No. 148/2005 was pending consideration relating to the Charter of Demands. Notwithstanding that the Labour Court in that light has arrived at the conclusion, another aspect which is a legal contention that has been urged by the respondent herein is also that an industrial dispute in Reference No. 148/2005 was pending consideration relating to the Charter of Demands. Though the order of dismissal dated 16.10.2006 was passed subsequent to the same, approval as contemplated under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been taken by the petitioner-Corporation and therefore under any circumstance, the order is non-est and therefore in such circumstance, the order impugned does not call for interference. 5. Having taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter, firstly it is to be noticed that the Labour Court after referring to the evidence available has rendered a finding of fact and thereafter has arrived at its conclusion which does not call for interference in a writ proceedings insofar as the conclusion reached with regard to the charge alleged against the respondent herein and the same not being established. 6. Secondly, what is to be noticed is that there is no material on record to indicate that an application seeking approval under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Tribunal Act had been filed though the order of dismissal is subsequent to the dispute in Reference No. 148/2005 being raised. If that be the position, insofar as the reinstatement that is ordered in any event this Court is not required to interfere since the order of termination cannot be sustained under any circumstance. 7. The question however is as to whether the back-wages as ordered by the Labour Court is to be sustained. In a normal circumstance keeping in view the mandate of the decision in Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited v. Ram Gopal Sharma ( AIR 2002 SC 643 ), the dismissal order will have to be treated as non-est and the workman would have to be put back to the same position with all benefits. In a normal circumstance keeping in view the mandate of the decision in Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited v. Ram Gopal Sharma ( AIR 2002 SC 643 ), the dismissal order will have to be treated as non-est and the workman would have to be put back to the same position with all benefits. However, in the case of the petitioner-Management keeping in view the fact that in large number of cases, such approval had not been taken due to the mistaken consideration of the legal position by the Officers and also taking note that the petitioner-Corporation being a public sector would be incurring public money to pay such employees, in appropriate cases where the employees themselves have given up the claim to the wages, the same has been recorded and reinstatement with continuity of service has been ordered. 8. In one of the cases in Writ Appeal No. 100366/2014, this Court while disposing of the appeal through its order, dated 03.09.2014 had modified the order to hold that the benefit of 50% back wages with continuity of service and other consequential benefits would be justified. Therefore, if all these aspects are kept in view, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to modify the award, dated 31.08.2010 impugned herein only to the extent of denying 50% of the back wages to the respondent herein. Therefore, it is made clear that the petitioner shall implement the award insofar as granting reinstatement, continuity of service and consequential benefits but the back-wages shall be limited to 50%. The reinstatement if already not made shall be made within two months from this day. 9. Petition is accordingly disposed of.