JUDGMENT : D.K. SINGH, J. 1. The present two writ appeals have been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24532/2016 connected with W.P.No.54627/2016. The management, the petitioner in W.P.No.25432/2016 filed the writ petition impugning the award dated 29.01.2016 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.63/2009, whereas the 14 workmen who are respondents in W.P.No.24532/2016 had filed the petition in W.P.No.54267/2016 impugning the award so far as awarding the back wages to an extent of Rs.3,00,000/- only and not the full back wages. 2. The learned Single judge, by the impugned judgment and order has disposed of both the petitions in following terms: (i) Writ Petition No.25432/2016 is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned award directing payment of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in lieu of back wages to each of the workmen is set aside. (iii) The workmen are entitled to 60% backwages from the date of the award passed by the Labour Court. (iv) The workmen are entitled to other benefits like continuity of service from the date of initial appointment and all other financial benefits. (v) The amount paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall be adjusted towards the monetary benefits payable to the workmen. (vi) Writ Petition No.54627/2016 claiming backwages is dismissed. (vii) The workmen who have attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of the proceedings are not entitled to reinstatement. However, they are entitled to all other monetary benefits conferred till the date of superannuation as per this order. 3. The base settlement between the Management and the Workers' Union had taken place on 18.04.2005, which got expired on 31.03.2008. The Workers' Union issued notice on 01.03.2008 demanding settlement. On 04.02.2008, the Union submitted its first charter of demands. The Management did not accept the said charter of demands. Despite several discussions between the Management and the Union, no settlement could be arrived at between the Management and the workers. It appears that as the Management was not accepting the charter of demands for wage settlement, the workmen resorted to strike and submitted a resignation dated 06.07.2009, which bore the names of 50 workmen, but it was signed only by 39 workmen. It appears that as the Management was not accepting the charter of demands for wage settlement, the workmen resorted to strike and submitted a resignation dated 06.07.2009, which bore the names of 50 workmen, but it was signed only by 39 workmen. On the very next day, i.e., on 07.07.2009, it is said that the Management had accepted the resignation of 14 workmen out of the 39 who signed the representation and submitted the resignation. The 14 workmen whose resignation was accepted out of the 39 workmen who had submitted a joint resignation, raised industrial dispute and the Government by its order dated 01.12.2009, preferred the following industrial dispute for decision of the Labour Court: (i) Whether it is justifiable that the applicant M/s Expert Industries Private Limited, Bommasandra, Bengaluru 560 099, accepting only the resignations of the employees who were working in their company viz., Sri.H.B.Biradar, Sri.A.Ramakrishna, Sri.A.Muniswamy, Sri.Aroop Thaki, Sri. Ranjit Das, Sri.R.Manjunath, Sri.Rehman, Sri.Satish Kumar, Sri.Holiyappa, Sri.G..Manjunath, Sri.Ramanath, Sri.B.Naik, Sri.Chalapathi and Sri.Krishnan and relieving them from the service? (ii) If not, for what relief the said employees are eligible? 4. The Labour Court, after considering the pleadings, framed the following additional issues for decision: (i) Whether second party proves that the concerned workmen have tendered their resignation voluntarily? (ii) What award or other relief the parties are entitled to? 5. The Labour Court after considering the evidence and the fact that out of 39 workmen who had submitted their joint resignation, only the resignation of 14 workmen were accepted. This was the one resignation signed by all the 39 workmen. The Management on the very next day of the date of resignation i.e., 07.07.2009 accepted the resignation of only 14 workmen. The learned Labour Court was of the opinion that accepting the resignation of 13/14 workmen out of 39 that too on the very next day was discriminatory. The workmen were forced to submit their resignation and their resignation was not voluntary. In view thereof, the reference was answered and the award dated 29.01.2016 came to be passed directing the Management to reinstate all 13/14 workmen within 30 days with all financial, consequential benefits including increments. Instead of full back wages, the Management was directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as lumpsum amount towards the back wages to each of the 13/14 workmen. 6. In view thereof, the reference was answered and the award dated 29.01.2016 came to be passed directing the Management to reinstate all 13/14 workmen within 30 days with all financial, consequential benefits including increments. Instead of full back wages, the Management was directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as lumpsum amount towards the back wages to each of the 13/14 workmen. 6. The said award came to be challenged by the Management and the workmen by filing two writ petitions as mentioned above. The learned Single Judge after considering the submission has passed the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the Management / petitioner has submitted that except for 13/14 workmen who are the respondents in the writ petition filed by the Management, all other workmen had withdrawn their resignations. The said submission appears to be completely false and incorrect. The date of the joint resignation is 06.07.2009. The acceptance of the resignation of 13/14 workmen is 07.07.2014 and therefore, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner / Management does not appear to be correct to say that all other workmen except the 13/14 workmen had withdrawn their resignation and only 13/14 workmen insisted not to come back on work. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find that the award or the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge requires ay interference except the order of 60% of the back wages as directed by the learned Single Judge instead of Rs.3,00,000/- lumpsum back wages awarded by the Labour Court. Therefore, we restore the award passed by the Labour Court dated 29.01.2009 and instead of 60% back wages as awarded by the learned Single Judge, we direct the Management to pay Rs.3,00,000/- lumpsum amount towards the back wages to each of the 14 workmen or their legal heir as the case may be. We make it clear that the workmen would be entitled for the full wages from the date of the award minus the wages paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We make it clear that the workmen would be entitled for the full wages from the date of the award minus the wages paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Management is directed to pay the lump sum amount towards the back wages of Rs.3,00,000/- to each of the 13 /14 workmen and the full wages from the date of the award minus wage already paid under Section 17B of the Act within a period of two months till the workmen are reinstated except those who have attained the age of superannuation. The reinstatement of the workmen who have got the service left should be forthwith. Appeals stand disposed of.