IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1628 of 2007 (M/S) Mohan Lal Kapoor S/o Late Sri S.L. Kapoor ………….. Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court Dehradun & ano. …………. Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, A.C.J. List has been revised. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 is not present. Heard Sri Pankaj Miglani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.M. Raturi, the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The Labour Court in its award found that the workman had reached the age of 74 years and, therefore, declined to grant reinstatement to the workman. The Labour Court, after considering the material evidence on record, found it fit to award compensation equivalent to five years of wages. The workman, being aggrieved by this part of the award, has filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working in a private firm where there were no rules relating to retirement and, therefore, the Labour Court committed an error in not reinstating the workman. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. Even in 2 a private firm, workers, employees or staff retire at a particular age and, if no rules are framed they retire at the whims and fancies of the employers. The Labour Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, namely, that the dispute was of the year 1993, found that it was not a fit case to reinstate the workman after such a long gap of time. Consequently, even if, there were no rules relating to retirement, the Labour Court was justified in refusing to grant reinstatement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that once the Labour Court had found that the order of retrenchment was illegal and in violation of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in that event, the Labour Court should have granted reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages. 5. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. As stated earlier, the Labour Court was justified in refusing to grant reinstatement. In so far as back wages is concerned, the Supreme Court in recent years has categorically held that back wages cannot be granted as a matter of rule, where the order of termination is set aside. Other factors are also required to be considered as held by the Supreme Court in G.M. Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan 3 Singh, JT 2005 (6) SC 137. In the present case, there is no such averments that the workman remained unemployed nor can it be imagined that the workman remained unemployed for the last 16 years. In the absence of factual averment, this Court is not inclined to consider the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, that full back wages should have been granted by the Labour Court. In my opinion, the Labour Court was philanthropic in granting 5 years of back wages. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any error in the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, ACJ) 18/11/2009 Shiv