JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

List has been revised. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 3.

2. Heard Shri Akshat Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 25.06.2006 passed by the Labour Court, 1st, Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 240 of 1994 so far as it has not awarded back wages to the petitioner and grant full back wages from the date of termination till the actual reinstatement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assembly Girl by the respondent no. 3 on 19.11.1985. On 14.08.1993, she was terminated from service without any opportunity of hearing or paying retrenchment compensation to her. Thereafter, a reference was made. After exchange of pleadings and evidence, the Labour Court, vide impugned award dated 25.06.2006, has held that the order terminating the services of the petitioner is illegal and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner in service, but did not award any back wages to the petitioner without assigning any reason. He further submits that the said award has not been challenged by the respondent no. 3 and she is discharging her duties without there being any complaint. He further submits that the Labour Court has not properly and legally considered the question of back wages while passing the award. He prays for allowing the writ petition.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the record.

6. In the award, the order of termination was found illegal and therefore, the petitioner was reinstated. The Labour Court has recorded the argument of both the side and in paragraph no. 14, the arguments and pleadings of the petitioner have been recorded, in which prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement along with back wages has also been recorded. The award was passed holding the termination order as bad and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner. Further, the respondent no. 3 has never challenged the award. If a termination order is set aside being illegal, the consequence would be that the order of termination was never passed and therefore, reinstatement in service with full back wages is the natural consequence of setting aside the order of termination. The Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Charan Singh [2015 AIR SCW 2615] has made the following observations:-

"17. In the present case, there has been an absence of cogent evidence adduced on record by the appellant to justify the termination of the services of the respondent-workman, who has been aggrieved by the non-awarding of back wages from the date of termination till the date of passing the Award by the Industrial Tribunal. There is no justification for the Industrial Tribunal to deny the back wages for the said period without assigning any cogent and valid reasons. Therefore, the denial of back wages to the respondent even though the Industrial Tribunal has recorded its finding on the contentious question no.1 in the affirmative in his favour and in the absence of evidence of gainful employment of the respondent during the relevant period, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power by the Industrial Tribunal for no fault of the respondent and the same is contrary to law as laid down by this Court in a catena of cases. Hence, it is a fit case for this Court to exercise its power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to award back wages to the respondent, even though the respondent has not filed a separate writ petition questioning that portion of the Award wherein no back wages were awarded to him by the Courts below for the relevant period. The respondent has got a right to place reliance upon the said provision of the Civil Procedure