R. RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the above petitioner for the issue of a writ of certiorari or direction to quash the award dated 28-5-1984 (Annexure-D) in so far as it relates to non-payment of back-wages and direct the 2nd respondent to pay full back-wages with continuity of services and all other consequential benefits. ( 2 ) THE petitioner who was appointed as a 'badali Conductor' in the year 1971 was again appointed on probation as Regular Conductor on 18th November, 1976 for a period of one year. Due to non-satisfactory service, he was removed by the second respondent by an order dated 15/16-3-1979. The petitioner being aggrieved by his discharge, has raised an industrial dispute and consequently a reference was made to the first respondent-Labour Court to give a finding about the justification of termination by the second respondent. ( 3 ) THE first respondent Labour Court on the appreciation of the case put forth by both the parties and by taking the assistance of the case between Management of karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v M. Boraiah and Another reported in AIR 1983 SC 1320 , held that the discharge order made by the second respondent amounts to retrenchment and having not paid the retrenchment compensation, the tennination was illegal. Having come to such a conclusion, the first respondent passed an Award for reinstatement of the petitioner with new salary in the same post de novo without payment of any back-wages. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Sri N. G. Phadke has submitted that the order of the first respondent is not legally sustainable as in cases of reinstatement, it is incumbent on the part of the Labour Court to award back-wages and having failed to do so, this Court has to interfere and grant full back-wages for the period of unemployment after discharge of the petitioner. The learned counsel by producing some of the Awards passed by the Labour Court has contended that the Labour Court made discrimination while awarding back-wages to one set of the employees. To substantiate his argument, the learned counsel produced the Award passed in Reference no. 71 of 1985 by the first respondent. The learned counsel by producing some of the Awards passed by the Labour Court has contended that the Labour Court made discrimination while awarding back-wages to one set of the employees. To substantiate his argument, the learned counsel produced the Award passed in Reference no. 71 of 1985 by the first respondent. This reference is in connection with the fifteen conductors who have involved in pilferage of non-issue of tickets after collecting the fare. In the said case, after holding, that domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and that the allegations contained in the charge-sheets do not amount to misconduct under the C and D Regulations of the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, the order of dismissal was set aside and the conductors were ordered to be reinstated with back-wages. ( 5 ) AGAINST this submission, learned counsel for the second respondent Sri A. T. Rai has submitted that the 1st respondent has taken into consideration the nature of the post held by the petitioner and the order of discharge for non-satisfactory service and thereafter the first respondent appreciated the case of the petitioner in the background of some of the important cases decided by the Supreme Court and disallowed payment of back-wages by the second respondent and hence the Award does not call for any interference by this Court. ( 6 ) IT is to be seen that the petitioner was initially posted as badali conductor. After some time he was asked to work regularly as conductor on probation. Since the work of the petitioner was unsatisfactory, his services were discharged by issuing an order by the Corporation. ( 7 ) THE law of discharge has taken different shapes after the pronouncement of the order in Management of K. S. R. T. C. , Bangalore v M. Boraiah and Another, AIR 1983 SC 1320 which Judgment has influenced the first respondent to hold that the discharge amounted to retrenchment as found under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial disputes Act and for non-compliance of Section 25-F the order of discharge is not sustainable and therefore reinstatement was ordered. The Labour Court has also considered the payment of back-wages and placing its reliance on the Judgments rendered in State Bank of India v Sundaramoney reported in 1976 (1) LLJ page 478 and Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v G. S. T. Mazdoor Sabha reported in AIR 1980 SC 1896 has disallowed payment of back-wages and has ultimately come to the conclusion that at the time of discharging the petitioner, the Judgment in Management of k. S. R. T. C. , Bangalore v M. Boraiah and Another, AIR 1983 SC 1320 was not available to the Management and hence the 2nd respondent was not aware of the correctness with regard to the discharge of the probationer and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for payment of back-wages. ( 8 ) IN Narotam Chopra v Presiding Officer, Labour Court and. Others reported in 1988 (2) CLR 220 and Hindustan Tin Works Limited v Its Employees reported in AIR 1979 SC 75 : 1978 (2) LLJ 474 , relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help to this case as in these Judgments, the Courts held that it is a case of retrenchment and as the retrenchment found to be defective, the Hon'ble Supreme court has ordered for payment of back-wages. ( 9 ) IN Hindustan Tin Works Ltd. case, it was held "in the very nature of things there cannot be a straight jacket formula for awarding relief of back-wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back-wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure". ( 10 ) THE first respondent has taken into consideration the error of law committed by the second respondent and that error came to be known only on the pronouncement of the Judgment much later and also the second respondent is a non-profit organisation solely meant for public utility and having lost crores of rupees in its venture from year to year, has declined to award back-wages. As the 1st respondent has given sufficient reasons for not awarding back-wages, I cannot substitute any reason for awarding back-wages only on the basis of some of the Judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As the 1st respondent has given sufficient reasons for not awarding back-wages, I cannot substitute any reason for awarding back-wages only on the basis of some of the Judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence I make the following: order this writ petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .