IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20509 of 1999 Between: S.Prabhakar, S/o. Lakshmi Narayana, R/o. Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour court, Warangal. 2 Superintending Engineer R&B Warangal Circle, Warangal. 3 Executive Engineer, Regular Division R&B, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Ceritiorari or any othe appropriate writ, direction or directions, quashing the Award of the 1st respondent in I.D.No.99/1995 dated 30.11.1998 denying the wages to the petitioner adn to issue a Consequential direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to pay backwages to the petitioner and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.20509 OF 1999 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the Award dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in I.D.No.99 of 1995 to the extent that it denied back wages to him. The petitioner worked as a NMR Work Inspector in the service of the respondent Roads and Buildings Department of the State from 01.10.1987 to 31.03.1994. Aggrieved by his termination from service in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’), he filed I.D.No.99 of 1995 before the Tribunal. By the impugned Award dated 30.11.1998, the Tribunal directed the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner in service as NMR Work Inspector and to treat and consider his seniority amongst other NMR Work Inspectors who were appointed after 01.10.1987. While granting the above relief, the Tribunal however held that in the given circumstances the petitioner was not entitled to back wages and other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the denial of back wages the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. Heard Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of the matter being adjourned several times, there is no assistance to this Court from the respondents or their counsel. Accordingly, the matter is being decided on the basis of the material available on record. Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned counsel, contended that the Tribunal ought not to have denied back wages to his client as all the findings of the Tribunal were in his favour and there was no circumstance noted by the Tribunal warranting denial of back wages to his client. The learned counsel took me through the Award passed by the Tribunal to demonstrate that no adverse remark or finding was recorded by the Tribunal against the petitioner on any count. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in ISHWARBHAI B. VHANDRA v. UNION OF INDIA[1], wherein the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal while directing reinstatement of the employee in service, failed to give any reasons for denying him back wages. On the facts and circumstances of that case, the Supreme Court held that it was a fit case to award full back wages to the employee. The learned counsel would therefore contend that his client is entitled to award of full back wages in the present case also. From a reading of the Judgment in ISHWARBHAI B. VHANDRA’s case, it is clear that the Supreme Court granted relief therein on the facts and circumstances of that case. There is no general principle laid down to the effect that in every case where reasons are not assigned by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court for denial of back wages, the workman would be entitled to full back wages on that ground. On the other hand, recent judicial thought is to the effect that award of back wages is not an automatic incident or consequence of reinstatement of an employee in service. Several other factors, including the gainful employment of the employee during the period of termination from service, have to be taken into account. That apart, the fact remains that by way of an exception to the rule ‘No work, No pay’, the employee, having remained out of service physically during the period of termination, would be given the benefit of wages for the said period only on the ground that his termination from service was illegal. It is therefore necessary for this Court to balance these conflicting interests and come to a reasonable conclusion as to the entitlement of the petitioner for back wages and the quantum thereof for the period of his expulsion from service. The petitioner filed affidavit dated 14.06.2009 wherein he averred on oath that after the date of his termination from service till the date of his reinstatement in service, he remained out of employment. He stated that he could not secure any job at that point of time and was hoping for reinstatement in the service of the respondent Department. He further stated that his family had to face starvation as he was the only bread earning member and it was only with the support of his well wishers that he could get through the said period. As stated supra, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent Roads and Buildings Department and in the absence of rebuttal, the affidavit filed by the petitioner must be accepted. The petitioner was terminated from service and the finding of the Tribunal that the same was illegal has become final as the respondent Department did not choose to question the same. The petitioner’s entitlement to back wages is therefore established. He remained out of service from 31.03.1994 upto the date of his reinstatement in service pursuant to the interim order dated 01.10.1999 passed by this Court in the present writ petition. I am however not inclined to grant full back wages to him for the reasons discussed hereinbefore. I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sufficiently served by awarding 50% of the back wages payable for the said period to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part directing the respondents to pay 50% (fifty percent) of the back wages payable to the petitioner from the date of his termination viz. 31.03.1994 upto the date of his reinstatement in the service of the respondent Department, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 26th June, 2009. VGSR/PGS [1] 1994 SCALE (1) 323