1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 66/1997 The Manager, Bata Shoe Store, Bikaner & Ors. Vs. The Prescribed Authority Cum Regional Dy.Labour Commissioner & Anr. ......... Date of Order : 26/11/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit for the petitioners. Mr. R.S.Saluja for the respondent. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 06.05.1996 passed by respondent No.1 has been challenged by the petitioners employer. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. By order dated 06.05.1996 passed by respondent No.1, the claim of respondent No.2 workman (for short 'the workman' hereinafter) has been accepted and he was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. Learned counsel for the parties submit that an identical writ petition being SBCW No.65/1997 “The Manager, Bata Shoe 2 Store, Bikaner & Ors. Vs. The Prescribed Authority Cum Regional Dy. Labour Commissioner & Anr., came to be decided by this Court by order dated 22.05.2001 modifying the award passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 to the extent that the respondent workman shall not be entitled for any backwages. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the facts of the present case are almost identical to that of SBCW No. 65/1997 “The Manager, Bata Shoe Store, Bikaner & Ors. Vs. The Prescribed Authority Cum Regional Dy. Labour Commissioner & Anr. I have carefully gone through the order impugned dated 06.05.1996 passed by respondent No.1 the Prescribed Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 (for short 'the Prescribed Authority' hereinafter). The Prescribed Authority has considered the material placed before it in right perspective and on sound and proper appreciation of the evidence and the material placed before it held that the termination of the services of the respondent workman was illegal and therefore, the same was set aside and it was directed that the workman be reinstated in service with continuity of service. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent workman has been reinstated in service in pursuance of the order impugned Annex.1 dated 06.05.1996. He further submits 3 that this Court by order dated 24.03.1998 directed the petitioner to pay backwages to the respondent workman from the date of award i.e. 06.05.1996 till the date of reinstatement. On careful perusal of the order Annex.1 dated 06.05.1996, in my view, the order impugned is based on proper and sound appreciation of the evidence and nothing has been pointed out as to how the order impugned suffers from any illegality or perversity and during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent workman has been reinstated in service and paid the backwages from the date of award i.e. 6.5.1996 till the date of reinstatement. Learned counsel for the respondent workman submits that though no order has been passed by the petitioner employer transferring the workman from the present place of posting but he has orally been asked to go and join at Bombay without there being any order. In my view, when the workman has been reinstated in compliance of the award dated 06.05.1996 and a similarly situated workman namely Deepak Kapoor has also been reinstated and allowed to continue at Bikaner, there can be no reason for not allowing the respondent workman herein to continue at Bikaner after having been reinstated in service. However, it is always open for the employer to transfer an employee from one place to another if the service exigency so requires. 4 In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of finally modifying the order passed by respondent No.1 the Prescribed Authority with a direction that the respondent workman shall not be entitled for back wages, however, he will be entitled for the back wages from the date of award till the date of reinstatement. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 5 S.B.CIVIL MISC. SECOND STAY PETITION NO.676/98 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 66/97 Date of Order : 26/11/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit for the petitioners. Mr. R.S.Saluja for the respondent. Since the writ petition itself has been disposed of, the second stay petition also stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp