JUDGMENT : Mohammad Nawaz, J. 1. In the above writ appeal, the appellant-The Management of North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Uttara Kannada Division (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management', for brevity) has assailed the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 65447 of 2011, wherein the learned Single Judge dismissed the said petition filed by the Management challenging the award dated 4th September 2010 passed in KID No. 13 of 2009. By the said award, the Labour Court was pleased to allow the petition filed by the first party i.e., the respondent herein and set aside the order of dismissal dated 31.01.2009 and directed the second party-Management to reinstate the respondent herein into service with full back wages from the date of his dismissal i.e., from 31.01.2009 till he is reinstated into service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the award. Further, the Government was directed to publish the award within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the award. The learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order, however, was of the opinion that the reinstatement with continuity of services and consequential benefits, as granted by the Labour Court, could not be sustained and grant of full back wages would not be justified and hence modified the award holding that the respondent herein would be entitled to 50% of the back wages. It was further ordered that the Corporation shall calculate the back wages payable pursuant to the order passed and to pay the same to the respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. The connected matter that is, CCC No. 100109 of 2018 is filed by the complainant/workman praying to punish the accused for having disobeyed the order dated 10.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 65447 of 2011 connected with Writ Petition No. 100780 of 2014. It is relevant to note that Writ Petition No. 100780 of 2014 was filed by the Management against the order passed by the Labour Court computing the amount payable to the respondent herein. 3. We have heard Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Management and Sri. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. It is relevant to note that Writ Petition No. 100780 of 2014 was filed by the Management against the order passed by the Labour Court computing the amount payable to the respondent herein. 3. We have heard Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Management and Sri. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Management is that the Labour Court though gave a finding with regard to the first issue in the affirmative holding that the Departmental Inquiry conducted by the Management was fair and proper, however, has erroneously held that the Management had failed to prove the charge against the respondent by coming to a conclusion that the appellant-Management has failed to prove the intention of the respondent in disrupting work, without considering that there was a history of number of cases against the respondent. It is the further contention of the appellant-Management that the learned Single Judge has erroneously dismissed the petition on the ground that approval as contemplated under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for brevity) was not obtained in respect of dismissal order passed against the respondent-workman. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, NEKRTC, Karnataka, v. Shivasharanappa (2017) 16 SCC 540 : LNINDORD 2017 SC 12053 : 2017-III-LLJ-513, he submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition merely on the ground that the requirement under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act had not been complied with. Accordingly, submits that the appeal be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the Labour Court having considered the validity or otherwise of the Departmental Inquiry and further considering the correctness or otherwise of the dismissal order by the Management, has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the order passed in the Departmental Inquiry dismissing the respondent from service, was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the workman and has rightly set aside the order of dismissal. He further contended that the learned Single Judge though dismissed the writ petition has held that the grant of full back wages would not be justifiable and modified the award holding that the respondent herein would be entitled to 50% of the back wages. He further contended that the learned Single Judge though dismissed the writ petition has held that the grant of full back wages would not be justifiable and modified the award holding that the respondent herein would be entitled to 50% of the back wages. He further contended that the appellant-Management has failed to comply with the direction issued while dismissing the writ petitions wherein the learned Single Judge had directed the Corporation to calculate the back wages payable pursuant to the order passed and directed that the same has to be paid to the respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Therefore, he submitted that the writ appeal be dismissed and the accused in CCC No. 100109 of 2018 be punished under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for having disobeyed the order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that the respondent was working as a conductor in the appellant-Corporation. He was dismissed from service on 31.01.2009. He assailed the same before the Labour court which held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, but set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the workman into service with full backwages from the date of his dismissal i.e. from 31.01.2009 till he is reinstated into service with continuity of service and other consequential benefits, within thirty days from the date of publication of the award. The said award was assailed by the corporation in W.P. No. 65447/2011. The workman filed an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was registered as application No. 22/2011 in which the amount payable to him was computed and a direction was issued to pay the amount to the respondent herein. The same was assailed by the corporation in W.P. No. 100780/2014. The learned single Judge modified the award by holding that the respondent was entitled to only 50% of the backwages. The learned single Judge further directed recalculation of the backwages payable to the respondent to the extent of 50% only and to pay the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 7. The learned single Judge modified the award by holding that the respondent was entitled to only 50% of the backwages. The learned single Judge further directed recalculation of the backwages payable to the respondent to the extent of 50% only and to pay the same within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 7. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge clearly goes to show that the learned Single Judge has considered the nature of the allegations that had been made against the respondent and the reasons assigned by the Labour Court and findings recorded with regard to the correctness of the charges brought against the workman for arriving at a conclusion that the order of dismissal was vitiated. Further, considering that as on the date of dismissal order, a dispute was pending between the workman and the petitioner-Management and approval, as contemplated under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act was required and since such an approval was not obtained, it was held that the order of dismissal passed against the workman was not sustainable. 8. But keeping in view all the aspects, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order not merely on the ground that the requirement under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act had not been complied with and prior approval had not been taken but on merits of the matter by reducing back wages to only 50%. In the circumstances of the case, we see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ appeal. However, we hereby grant further time of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for the Management to calculate the back wages pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge and to pay the same to the respondent. In the light of the above direction, the Contempt of Court Case is disposed off. No order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, all the pending I.As. do not survive and are accordingly dismissed.