IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4123 of 2011 Date of Decision : 8.11.2011 Jai Singh …..petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. R. S. Chandel proxy counsel vice Mr. A. K. Gupta, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following relief: “i. That the respondents may be ordered to implement the award with immediate effect and the wages w.e.f. 29.11.2010 up to the date of implementation may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner along with interest and the said money may be recovered from the respondents No. 3 and 4.” 2. In terms of award dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Presiding Judge, HP Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, in Ref. No. 72 of 2001, petitioner has been directed to be re-instated in service w.e.f. 25.6.2009 with seniority and continuity but without back wages. 3. It is not in dispute that in principle State has accepted the award. Also response filed by the State shows that petitioner has been re- engaged after completion of all codal formalities. 2 4. Insofar as back wages is concerned, having perused the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to the same. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material placed on record, as also evidence (oral or documentary) led by the parties while arriving to the conclusion that petitioner is not entitled for re-instatement with back wages. There is no illegality or perversity with the same. Undisputedly petitioner has failed to show that he could not be gainfully employed during the period of his disengagement. The Apex Court in Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited Versus Sushil Kumar, (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases, 486 has held that burden to prove that workman was not gainfully employed after termination, is not on the management but on the employee, which in the instant case has not been discharged by the petitioner. 5. With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 8, 2011 (rana)