1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ::JUDGMENT:: 1. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.279/2008 Food Corporation of India Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Tulsi Marg, Jaipur & Ors. 2. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.280/2008 Food Corporation of India Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Tulsi Marg, Jaipur & Ors. 3. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.281/2008 Food Corporation of India Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Tulsi Marg, Jaipur & Ors. 4. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.282/2008 Food Corporation of India Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Tulsi Marg, Jaipur & Ors. 5. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.283/2008 Food Corporation of India Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Tulsi Marg, Jaipur & Ors. 6. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.284/2008 Food Corporation of India Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Tulsi Marg, Jaipur & Ors. Date of Judgment :: February 26, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. P.C. Shah for the appellant. **** Heard Mr. P.C. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant. Since all these six appeals arise out of the common order, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 2 Substantially, a grievance has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant against that part of the order impugned whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ application directed for reinstatement of the concerned workman with back-wages from the date of award i.e.13.2.2006. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the award was passed on 13.2.2006, the writ application was disposed of in the month of October, 2007 and in between the concerned workmen had not worked, and therefore, they would not be entitled for any wages. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that pursuant to the order of this Court, they have already issued necessary directions asking the concerned workman to come and join, and in view of this, the appellant may not be saddled with extra burden of payment of back-wages to the workman concerned from the date of award. It is true that the appellant has shown its sincerity in carrying out the directions of this Court but at the same time, the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court directing payment of back-wages from the date of award, in no manner, appears to be unreasonable or contrary to the provisions of law. In this view of the matter, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court for payment of back-wages from the date of award, in our opinion, need not be interfered with. With this direction and observation, these appeals are dismissed. Skant/- (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ.