1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1513/1995. : : Ram Ratan Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur & Anr. : : Date of Order 26.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. Anant Bhandari for the petitioner. Mr. Kapil M. Chandra for respondent No.2. Heard leaned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the award passed by Labour Court dated 8.11.1994 by which reference made on the question of validity of his termination has been answered in the terms that action of respondents in terminating services of petitioner was not legal and justified and he would be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity, but without any back wages. 3. Shri Anant Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Correspondent S. T. Michad's Teacher's Training Institute Vs. V. N. Karpaga Mory & Ors. : 2008 (7) SCC, 388 and V. C. 2 Banaras University & Ors. Vs. Shrikant : 2006 (11) SCC, 42 and argued that Supreme Court in aforesaid cases held that when the order of termination set aside and declared illegal, back wages should be awarded as a mater of course. 4. Shri Kapil M. Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that in fact, respondent never terminated the services of petitioner. He on his own will stopped coming to the duties. Subsequently when the award was passed on 8.11.1994 declaring his alleged termination illegal and directed for reinstatement with continuity, the petitioner never turned up to attend the duties and he never attempted to get the award enforced. Learned counsel cited judgment of Supreme Court in Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. Vs. Shamim Mirza : 2009 LLR, 226 in which it was held that direction of payment of back wages does not necessarily the order of reinstatement. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that in the present case reference was made with regard to termination of petitioner on 10.9.1982 and the notification of reference was 3 issued on 15.11.1993. However award could be passed by Labour Court only on 8.11.1994. Keeping this fact and also the fact in view that respondents before the Conciliation Officer expressed their willingness to reinstate the petitioner in service. Learned Labour Court though directed reinstatement of petitioner with continuity, but did not award any back wages. There is no rule that in every case, where termination was held illegal, the direction of full back wages should follow as a matter of course. The relief that is ultimately granted by Labour Court on adjudication of dispute is always dependent on exercise of judicial discretion, which in turn would be governed by the facts and circumstances of each case. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable. 6. Having regard to the facts of the case, it cannot be said that Labour Court erred in law in refusing to direct for payment of full back wages. In view of subsequent conduct of petitioner also, it is evident that he was not willing to serve the respondents. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ -Item No.1.