1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4593/1999 Agrawal Group Officer, Agrawal Transport Corporation, Nagpur PETITIONER ...VERSUS... 1. Shri Pramod Zituji Gajbhiye, Nagpur. 2. The Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri S.W.Ghate, Counsel for Petitioner. None for respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20 th JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1 Heard Mr. Ghate for the petitioner employer. None for the respondent employee. Rule was issued on 8th February, 2001. There operates interim stay in favour of the petitioner employer against the order of back-wages. 2 2 The learned counsel for the employer informs, in spite of the order of reinstatement, the so called employee did not turn to attend the job. 3 Before the authorities, the petitioner canvassed that he was ready to reinstate the employee respondent. The notices of the application were indeed not served upon the petitioner herein, consequently he approached the Labour Court to set aside the earlier order, however, it was rejected. 4 The short point now involved is, about the payment of back-wages to the respondent employee. The respondent employee did not point from any evidence that after his so called termination dated 25.7.1993, he remained unemployed. It was a case put up by the petitioner that the matter was resolved and there was settlement dated 11th January, 1994. 5 Considering these factual details, it hardly counts for 3 consideration of the back wages payable to the said employee/respondent, who has, as said above, did not adhere even to resume the duties with the petitioner. In the absence of any evidence that the respondent employee has not attended any other work and was unemployed for continuous period, the direction to pay back-wages could not be legally said to be continued. The order requires interference. The same to the extent of back-wages is set aside. Rule made absolute as above. JUDGE Rvjalit