1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.774/1997 Shambhu Lal Vaishnav. vs. Sarpanch, GP Putholi and others. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.774/1997 Shambhu Lal Vaishnav. vs. Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Putholi and others. Date : 14.1.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.IR Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.KK Bissa, for the respondents. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the award dated 6.12.1996 only to the extent that the petitioner has been denied back wages in total even after holding that the petitioner was wrongly removed from service with effect from 9.5.1989. This Court entertained the writ petition and while issuing notice on 14.2.1997, recorded the contention on behalf of the petitioner that if the award is modified and 25% of the back wages are awarded to the petitioner, the petitioner will be satisfied. Therefore, the total controversy in this writ petition is that whether the petitioner is entitled to 25% of the back wages or not ? The contention of the petitioner is that he 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.774/1997 Shambhu Lal Vaishnav. vs. Sarpanch, GP Putholi and others. was given appointment in the year 1982 on the post of Nakedar with a salary of Rs.210/- per month and he was removed from service on 9.5.1989. The award was passed on 6.12.1996. The Labour Court was of the view that the petitioner himself admitted in his statement that he is not a non-earning person and this fact the petitioner cannot deny in view of his own statement before the Labour Court. Otherwise also, there is a very petty amount involved as according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner since was getting salary of Rs.210/- and 25% of it is Rs.50/- only, therefore, the total amount will be Rs.600/- per year and for 7 years, it would be Rs.4,200/-. I do not find that such an amount is material in the present point of time so as to interfere in the award dated 6.12.1996. In view of the fact that the reason has been given by the Labour Court for not awarding the back wages, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere in the impugned award. Consequently, the writ petition of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya