1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2232 OF 2011 Dilip s/o Nanakchand Lalwani Vs. Kilburn Office Automatin Limited and another. .......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .......................................................................................................................................... Mr. M.P. Lala, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : R. M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 29th JULY, 2011. 1] The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 3rd /4th March, 2011 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, by which order the Revision (ULPN)245/2010 filed by the petitioner and Revision (ULPN) 236/2010 filed by the Management came to be dismissed. The services of the petitioner herein were terminated by the respondent company on 15.4.2008 on account of loss of confidence as the petitioner was criminally prosecuted. The petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal prosecution. The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 39/2008 alleging unfair labour practice under Item-1 of Schedule-IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The said complaint was allowed and the termination of the petitioner was set aside. However, since there was no evidence adduced by the petitioner that he was not gainfully employed, the petitioner was denied back wages. .....2/- 2 The learned labour court considered the position in law that even if the termination is set aside, it is not that in every case it is necessarily to be followed by the grant of back wages. 2] Against the order dated 27.9.2010 passed by the Labour Court, both the employer i.e. respondent herein and the petitioner filed revision applications. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the revision (ULP) No. 245/2010 was filed by him in which the challenge was restricted to the order passed by the Labour Court refusing him back wages. The challenge of the respondent company in its revision was the reinstatement granted to the petitioner. Both the revision applications have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 3rd/4th March, 2011 passed by the Industrial Court. In so far as the refusal of back wages is concerned, the Industrial Court has confirmed the finding of the Labour Court that since there was no material on record that the petitioner was not gainfully employed, and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court that it is not a general rule that back wages have to follow the grant of reinstatement, the Industrial Court confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court. 3] Having perused the orders passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, in my view, there is no illegality or infirmity committed by both the courts, on the aspect of refusal of back wages to the petitioner is concerned. The law in that respect being well settled, both the courts were right in coming to a conclusion that there .....3/- 3 was no warrant for the grant of back wages. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Hirekhan ...../-