1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4934/2006 Parakaram Singh. vs. Chief Manager, Bhilwara Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd., Bhilwara & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4934/2006 Parakaram Singh. vs. Chief Manager, Bhilwara Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd., Bhilwara & Anr. Date : 13.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Ravi Bhansali, for the petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the order no.13/97 of the State Government. The petitioner's allegation was that he was removed from service on 16.5.88. The dispute came for decision of the Labour Court on 7.8.97. The Labour Court, Bhilwara was of the view that the termination of service of the petitioner was illegal, therefore, the order of reinstatement was 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4934/2006 Parakaram Singh. vs. Chief Manager, Bhilwara Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd., Bhilwara & Anr. passed vide award dated 12.5.2004. However, back wages have been denied. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since it has not been ordered specifically that the petitioner shall be entitled to benefit of continuity of service, therefore, it has been denied. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for seeking relief for continuation of service from 16.5.88 and for getting back wages. Admittedly as admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that even after the award dated 12.5.2004, the petitioner did not join nor reported on duty. It is submitted that the petitioner did not join the duty because continuity of service has not been given to the petitioner, therefore, to earn, he engaged himself in another job. I perused the facts of the case and in a case where the petitioner's service has been terminated in the year 1988 and admittedly, he did not work 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4934/2006 Parakaram Singh. vs. Chief Manager, Bhilwara Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd., Bhilwara & Anr. from 1988 to till today and that too further inspite of the award in his favour, passed as back as in the year 2004, then this additional reason justified the non-interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India and the plea of the petitioner that he did not join the duty inspite of the award because he has not been given the continuity of service and he joined the other job to have bread for himself and his family clearly shows that the petitioner was hardly interested in the job because by joining the duty on the post which he was holding, would have given him sufficient wages for his bread. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award. Consequently, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya