DBSAW NO.261/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.261/2008. In S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3323/1994. Mahaveer Prasad Bairagi Vs. State of Rajasthan and others Date of order:- September 10, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma for the appellant. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT :- Heard counsel for the parties. 2) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-workman against the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby award passed in his favour by the labour court has been partly modified and he has been denied benefit of back wages. 3) Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no justification for withholding backwages because the respondent-State could not prove their case either before the Labour Court or before the learned Single Judge of this Court that the appellant was in gainful employment anywhere during all this times. Benefit of backwages therefore could not be denied to the DBSAW NO.261/08. 2 appellant by invoking principles of “no work no pay”. Learned counsel submitted that once termination/retrenchment of the appellant was declared illegal, consequential benefits would follow as a matter of course and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the labour court. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in M/s.Nicks (India) Tools Vs. Ram Surat & Anr. : 2004 VIII AD (S.C.) 444. 4) Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant was retrenched from services long ago on 1/6/1987 and the award was passed with enormous delay on 3/2/1994. Reference itself was made to the labour court with a substantial delay of 14 years on 6/12/1994. In the circumstances, judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in withholding the backwages cannot be said to be either illegal or otherwise erroneous. 5) Having considered the arguments of the parties and perused the material on record and the cited judgment, we find that retrenchment of the appellant-workman in the present case was made long ago on 1/6/1987 and reference of this dispute was made to the labour court by the appropriate government with the delay of more than 14 years on 6/12/1994. 6) It is trite law that in cases where reference is made with such an enormous delay, the court can mould the relief and in doing so, can even deny the backwages for the intervening period taking DBSAW NO.261/08. 3 into consideration the period of delay and also invoking principles of “no work no pay”. 7) The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts. 8) We thus do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil