SBCWP NO.2198/02. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2198/2002. Mohan Lal Sharma Vs. Judge Labour Court Jaipur & Anr. Date of order : February 06, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Suresh Kashyap for the petitioner-workman. Shri Deepak Goyal for respondent No.2. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award passed by the Labour Court on 7/2/2002 by which Labour Court while holding retrenchment of the petitioner-workman by the respondent-management illegal directed his reinstatement but denied back-wages. 2) Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the sole basis of denying back-wages was the presumption which the Labour Court SBCWP NO.2198/02. 2 raised that for the intervening period of retrenchment, petitioner-workman remained in the employment elsewhere. Learned counsel argued that in view of the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the back-wages could not be denied on the basis of mere presumption and gainful employment of the workman for the intervening period has to be proved as question of fact. 3) Shri Deepak Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the writ petition and argued that award of the Labour Court was decided against respondent No.2 because their counsel pleaded no instructions and in those facts, Labour Court found the working of the petitioner-workman upto 240 days even then, respondent No.2 accepted the award and reinstated the petitioner only because back-wages were not directed to be paid. It was argued that petitioner is presently working with respondent No.2 and and that respondent No.2 accepted the award as final. 4) Perusal of the award clearly shows that petitioner was appointed with respondent No.2 on 16/7/1992 and even before he could complete one year, his services were retrenched on 1/5/1993. Labour Court found the working of the petitioner more than 240 days proved because respondent No.2 was not able to contest assertion of the petitioner before the Labour Court that he worked for more than 240 days and in fact, its counsel did not plead instructions. SBCWP NO.2198/02. 3 Respondent No.2 has accepted the award and reinstated the petitioner. 5) In the facts of the case, I do not deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the back-wages which was denied by the Labour Court. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil