IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITIGN N021 8812001 PETITIONER Narendra Pal Singh, Aged - years,S/o Shri Charan Singh, C/o Harjinder Kaur, Gurunanak Prathmik Shala, Bus Stand. Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus 1. Neyojak Rajaram & Brothers, Kailash RESPONDENTS Nagar‘ Rajnandgaon (CG) _, ,‘vv “é Presiding Officer, under LD‘ Act, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon (CG) glam Benm; H¢n’ble watish KhAqnihwlgL Present: - Shri Pradeep Saksena, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. K. C. Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Shashi Bhuehan, counsel for respondent No.1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 08‘“ day of September, 2009) Heard learned counsei for the parties. (2) By this petition, the petitioner prays for direction to respondent No.1 to grant the back-wages to the petitioner for the period he remained out of service. (3) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was employed in the respondent No.1/Firm as Bank lnchargeIClerk since 1995 and continued on the said post till the date of his termination i.e.6—9-1995 (Annexure P/2). Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. The Labour Court by order dated 01-08-2000 (Annexure P- 1) declared the order dated 6-9-1 995 as illegal and directed to reinstate the petitionerin service without back-wages. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was no were gainfully employed and as such the petitioner is entitled to back-wages as the petitioner was deprived of earning during the period he was ’removed from service iilegally. The Labour Court ought to have granted the back-wages to the petitioner because without assigning any reasons the petitioner has been terminated from service. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent No.1 has failed to prove its case before the Labour Court. Thus. this petition for grant of back-wages. (4) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No‘1 supported the award passed by the Labour Court. Mr. Tiwary further submits that the petitioner wouid not be entitled to payment of back-wages on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. The petitioner has not established the malatide aotion on the part of the respondent No.1 while terminating his Sewlce. 3. (5) Having heard teamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the Labour Court while passing the award has considered all the details and has rightly passed the impugned award. l have found that no other proof or evidence except the statement of the petitioner that he was not gainfully employed during the period he was out of service, was produced. (6) Be that as it may, it is well-nigh established that the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record. which is not in the present case. (7) The Supreme Court, in M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Empfoyees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd.fP.G./.of Medicai Education &' Research, Chandigarh v. Rajkumarz, Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay KumaF, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Birendra Bhandan", Banshi Dhar v. State of Rajasthan & another5, J.K. Syndvstics Ltd. .v. K. P. Agrawai 8. anotheis, Hamdard (ill/aid) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour Commissioner & others7, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Rawel Singhg, has vividiy discussed the scope of a writ court 1 (1979) 2 scc so para 11 3 (2003)4 scc 579 2 (2001) 2 SCC 54, para 9 & 12 4 (2005) 10 sec 211 5 (2007) 1 scc 324 pm 7, 8 & 9 'i (2007) 5’scc 281 6 (2007) 2 scc 433 para 11, 13, 17m 19 o 28 8 (2008) 4 scc 42 para 17 to 19 E , / 5L?) granting back wages that payment of back wages, purely a discretionary element has to be dealt with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case . (8) Moreover, the payment of back wages is a discretionary power which has to be exercised by a Court/Tribunal keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case in their entirety and no straitiacket formula can be evolved nor a rule of universal application can be laid down in such cases. While dealing with the prayer of back wages, factual scenario and \ the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an appropriate Court/Tribunal. «é t "' (9) Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case on hand, there are two factors which go against grant of back wages. Firstly. the petitioner has failed to prove that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the period he was out of service and secondly the petitioner has not established the malahde action on the part of the respondent No.1 while terminating his service. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of back wages. (10) For the discussions and reasons afore-stated, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. i Sd/- Satish K. Aglihotri Judge /