1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1127/2002. : : Narpat Singh Vs. The Judge Labour Court & Anr. : : Date of Order 19.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Suresh Kashyuap for the petitioner. Mr.Jinesh Jain for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 12.10.2001 whereby the learned Labour Court while declaring removal of the petitioner as illegal directed his reinstatement with continuity, but without any back wages. The petitioner-workman has preferred this writ petition against that part of the award, by which he was denied back wages. Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Labour Court erred in not allowing him back wages when it has declared the order of removal as illegal and directed reinstatement in continuity. It was argued that termination of the petitioner by order dated 20.5.1997 2 was wholly unjustified and when this finding was rendered by the Labour Court, the back wages ought to have followed as a matter of consequence. The learned Labour Court could not on the basis of presumption that the petitioner in the intervening period must have worked some where denied the payment of wages. Shri Jinesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondents opposed writ petition and submitted that they have reinstated the petitioner in compliance of the award of the Labour Court and by accepting the award they did not decide to challenge the validity of the same. It is submitted that already when the petitioner has been provided with the employment he could not be paid back wages. The Labour Court rightly declined to pay back wages because the petitioner has worked in the gainful employment elsewhere. It was based on the principal of no work no payment. Consideration of the aforesaid arguments show that there cannot be any dispute of the fact that termination of the petitioner was held illegal and he was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity. The Labour Court in its discretion did not decide to pay back wages to the petitioner as he could not give any satisfactory explanation as to the gainful employment during the intervening period. The 3 respondents have reinstated the petitioner in compliance of the award of the Labour Court and did not challenge the validity of the same any further. The reference on the industrial dispute was answered by the Labour Court within four years, therefore, looking to this short period, interference with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court is not called for. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.22.