H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Y.V. Shah for the petitioner and Mr. Joshi for Nanavati Associates for respondent.

2. Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award made by the Labour Court, Valsad in Reference No. 98 of 1995 dated 22.02.2006 qua denial of back wages for the intervening period.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Y.V. Shah for the petitioner submitted that the relevant factors have not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while denying back wages for the intervening period. He submits that the petitioner was permanent qualified employee working on the post of welder vendor for more than 26 years continuously and ex parte departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the Labour Court gave finding that it was a first misconduct and occupying quarter subsequently allotted by the company as the petitioner was wrongfully dismissed based on ex pare inquiry which was rightly quashed by the Labour Court and, therefore, being normal and natural consequence, petitioner is entitled for full back wages for intervening period. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the