Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. Rule.

2. With the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order of the tribunal dated 21.5.2005. Counsel for the petitioner contends that tribunal has wrongly held the petitioner not entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Tribunal has held the termination of the petitioner as illegal then the petitioner ought to have been granted the relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the operative part of impugned award. The same is reproduced below:

In view of my findings on issues No. 1 & 2, I hold that termination of the workman is illegal. Accordingly, I hold that workman is entitled to 40% of the back wages from 16.7.98 till the date of passing of this award. He is above 60 years of age and not physically fit to undertake the duties. In other words, he cannot be reinstated. All the dues should be paid to the workman within two months. The reference is answered accordingly. Copy of the award be sent to the a