ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. In the instant writ application prayer has been made for quashing the Award dated 25.05.2016 (Annexure-3), passed in Ref. Case No. 3 of 2014, whereby the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad has though answered the award in favour of the petitioner holding that the "Action of management in not regularizing Sri A.C. Trigunait, Clerk Special Grade in post of Office Superintendent is not justified", but denied to grant any back wages in lieu of salary attached to the post of Office Superintendent. 3. The facts of the case in short is that petitioner joined the services of respondent-BCCL on 01.10.1971 and discharged his duties diligently and sincerely and as such, he was promoted to the different higher posts from time to time. In the year 2010, he was promoted from Clerical Grade-II to Special Grade and was directed to work as Superintendent of the Manpower and Recruitment division of BCCL Head Quarter. While discharging the said duties, he made representation for regularization of his services as Office Superintendent in T&S Grade 'A' in terms of Certified Standing Orders of M/s. BCCL. However, on attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2013 as Special Grade, while pursuing his claim for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent. But when no action was taken by the respondent-BCCL, he raised an industrial dispute through his Sponsored Union before the concerned Authority. On failure of conciliation, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) forwarded the report before the Central Government and then the concerned Department of the Central Government by order dated 03.01.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Govt. Industrial No. 1, Dhanbad framing the following issue: "Whether the action of the management of Koyla Bhawan of BCCL in not regularizing Sri A.C Trigunait, Clerk Special Grade in the post of Office Superintendent is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? " 4. Upon receipt of the said notification, the learned Tribunal registered the same as Ref. Case No. 03 of 2014 and issued notices to both the parties. Upon receipt of the notices, both parties appeared and filed their receipt written statements, rejoinder, etc. apart from adducing the oral evidences. To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? " 4. Upon receipt of the said notification, the learned Tribunal registered the same as Ref. Case No. 03 of 2014 and issued notices to both the parties. Upon receipt of the notices, both parties appeared and filed their receipt written statements, rejoinder, etc. apart from adducing the oral evidences. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and perusing the documents and evidences brought on record, answered the award in favour of the petitioner holding therein that: "Considering the facts and circumstances of this case that the action of the management of Koyla Bhawan of M/s. BCCL in not regularizing Shri A. C Trigunait, Clerk Special Grade in the post of Office Superintendent is not fair. Hence, it is ordered to regularize the workman in the post of Office Superintendent without any back wages. He be given his retirement dues or arrear, if any, in the initial scale of Office Superintendent." 5. Aggrieved by non-consideration of his case for extending the benefits of back wages, the petitioner has approached this Court 6. Mr. Sanjay Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vociferously argues that though learned Tribunal has held that petitioner has worked to the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 24.12.2010 but illegally and arbitrarily denied him the salary of the said period. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner is entitled to entire back wages on his regularization w.e.f. June, 2011 since the petitioner's services has been taken on higher post from 24.12.2010 and in view of the provisions made under the Certified Standing Orders contained in letter dated 20.10.1990, the petitioner ought to have been regularized w.e.f. June, 2011 to the post of Office Superintendent along with the salary attached to the said post. Learned counsel further argues that the award passed by the learned Tribunal, partly allowing the claim of the petitioner, without taking into consideration the material and evidences brought on record, is illegal and unjustified. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL submits that in compliance of the Award dated 25.05.2016, an office order dated 16/18.04.2018 has been issued under the signature of General Manager (M.P. & IR), BCCL and the petitioner has already been regularized to the post of Office Superintendent in T&S Grade-A w.e.f. 23.12.2012 but without any back wages. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BCCL submits that in compliance of the Award dated 25.05.2016, an office order dated 16/18.04.2018 has been issued under the signature of General Manager (M.P. & IR), BCCL and the petitioner has already been regularized to the post of Office Superintendent in T&S Grade-A w.e.f. 23.12.2012 but without any back wages. Hence, the award passed by the learned Tribunal has already been implemented and the writ petition requires no interference. 8. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, it appears that the Award passed by the learned Tribunal has already been implemented and averments to that effect has been made in para-6 and 8 of the counter-affidavit and also, the respondents have issued office order dated 16/18.04.2018 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit) showing implementation of the said award. Para-6 and 8 of the counter-affidavit reads as under: (6) That the answering respondents most humbly states and submits that as per the cadre scheme, the minimum eligibility for promotion to T&S Grade A is 5 years' experience of Spl. Grade Clerk for promotion of a ministerial staff. Accordingly Sri Trigunait would have been entitled for being considered for promotion in T&S Grade-A after 31.03.2015 but as per the date of birth recorded in the service file of Sri Trigunait, he superannuated from the services of the company w.e.f. 31.08.2013. (8) That the answering respondent states that the initial basic of Office Superintendent in T&S Grade A as per NCWA-IX is Rs. 22149.01 which is much lower than the basic of Rs.43226.96 which was being drawn by the writ petitioner at the time of his superannuation. Therefore Sri Trigunait is not entitled to receive any further monetary benefits in the light of the Award dated 25.05.2016 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in Ref Case No. 03 of 2014. " Further, Office Order dated 16/18.04.2018, issued under the signature of General Manager (MP & IR) of respondent-BCCL, reads as under: "In pursuance of Award dated 25.05.2016, passed by the presiding Officer, CGIT No. 1, Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 03 of 2014, Sri A.C Trigunait, Cler Special Grade who has already been superannuated w.e.f. 31.08.2013 is deemed to have been regularized as Office Supdt. in T&S Grade-A w.e.f. 23.12.2012 without any back wages. Case No. 03 of 2014, Sri A.C Trigunait, Cler Special Grade who has already been superannuated w.e.f. 31.08.2013 is deemed to have been regularized as Office Supdt. in T&S Grade-A w.e.f. 23.12.2012 without any back wages. He will be entitled for retirement dues or arrear, if any, in the initial scale of Office Suptd." 9. From perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs as well as Office order dated 16/18.04.2018, it appears that award dated 25.05.2016 passed by learned Tribunal has already been implemented and petitioner has been given deemed promotion to the post of Office Superintendent but as the petitioner is getting higher salary than that of the basic pay of Office Superintendent, there is no question of giving any back wages to him. However, petitioner is entitled for retiral benefits and the respondent-BCCL is directed to extend the same, if not paid till date, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. As sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, no interference is warranted in the instant writ application and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.