9. We have perused the award passed by the Labour Court, dated 16.12.2003, wherein the Labour Court set aside the order of termination, dated 25.09.1993 and held that the workman is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and without backwages. The decreetal portion of the award clearly states that the Management should reinstate the workman with continuity of service and without backwages. The Labour Court having granted continuity of service and the award having attained finality, for all purposes, other than the backwages, the workman should be treated as a workman deemed to have been in service during the period of non-employment. The consequence, which will naturally flow from such a direction is that the workman will be entitled for attendant benefits, but, cannot claim backwages as that has been denied by the Labour Court. Therefore, if the Management has understood the award in a different manner, it is incorrect. In other words, the correct interpretation would be to reinstate the workman in service granting continuity of service that would mean that he was deemed to have been in employment and if he is deemed to have been in employment, he would be entitled to backwages and other attendant benefits. But, backwages have been denied by the Labour Court in the award. Therefore, the workman cannot claim backwages, but, can claim all attendant benefits, which flow from the order of reinstatement, which shall be effective from the date of order of dismissal. This would be the correct way of interpreting the award. In fact, the award having been confirmed by the learned Writ Court, in our opinion, the appellant cannot be aggrieved by the finding, especially, when before us the workman has unconditionally given up his challenge to the denial of backwages in this appeal.
