JUDGMENT

Kshitij Shailendra, J.

Heard Shri Bharat Singh Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1, Shri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

2. The petitioner Shyam Kishore Pandey was a workman in respondent No. 2, which is a Sugar Mill. Admittedly, he has died during the pendency of writ petition and is substituted by his wife and son as petitioner Nos. 1/1 and 1/2.

3. The challenge has been made to the award dated 21.01.1998, whereby the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service with salary and other allowances with effect from the date of the award with an observation that the petitioner shall not be entitled for salary and back-wages for the period during which he had not worked.

4. The limited challenge made in the present writ petition is to the effect that the Labour Court was not justified in directing payment of financial benefits only from the date of the award but, in the facts of the case, the petitioner was entitled for entire back-wages from the date of termination of his services till the date of award and for further periods.

5. There is no dispute that pursuant to the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated and, after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired and thereafter died.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the previous occasion, this Court passed the following order on 05.07.2023:

"1. Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. The impugned award has been challenged by the workman (since deceased) and represented by his heirs /legal representatives only to the extent that while the labour court has directed reinstatement of the workman but in so far as the arrears of salary and back wages are concerned, direction is for making payment from the date of the award.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that such direction should have been from the date of termination of his services.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 has argued that since the workman did not raise any plea in his written statement that he was not gainfully employed and did not discharge the initial burden before the labour court in this regard, the direction for making payment from the date of award is in accordance with law.

5. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment to further study the matter.

6. List on 25.7.2023."

7. The issue, therefore, which arises for consideration is that, on the basis of material placed before the Labour Court, as to whether denial of back-wages to the petitioner was just and proper.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Moradabad v. Lakhan Singh and others, reported in 2019 (2) ADJ 454, in which this Court, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others reported in 2013 (10) SCC 324, observed that if the employer wants to deny back-wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting emoluments. For a ready reference paragraph No. 63 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:

"63. The Supreme Court on