D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an employee under the respondent No. 1 which is the Co-operative Central Bank at Chhindwara. The services of the petitioner were arbitrarily terminated during emergency by order dated 11-5-1976 (Annexnre C ). That order of termination was set aside by tbe Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by order dated 10-9-1979 (Annexure-E), in a dispute filed by the petitioner under Section 55 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The Deputy Registrar directed re-instatement of the petitioner in service, but deprived him of the benefit of back wages stating that even after termination of his services the petitioner was guilty of mis-conduct of not handing over charge of his post. ( 2 ) THE petitioner went up in appeal against the order of the Deputy registrar depriving him of the back wages, to the Court of the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, The Joint Registrar, by order dated 31-3-1992 granted full relief to the petitioner holding that the services of the petitioner having been terminated arbitrarily, he could not be deprived of his back wages. ( 3 ) THE Board of Revenue, however, by the impugned order dated 10-5-1983 (Annexure-H) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Bank and held that the petitioner could not have been awarded back wages although his termination was held to be arbitrary and liable to be quashed. The Board of Revenue in depriving the petitioner of back wages placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sagar Co-operative central Bank Ltd, Sagar v. M. P. Revenue Board (1961 R. N 131) and a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Managing Director U. P. Warehousing corporation and other v. Vijay Narayan Bajpai, ( AIR 1980 SC 840 ). In our opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid two decision on which the Revenue Board has placed reliance can have no application to the case of the petitioner. It is true, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Narayan Bajpai (supra)that the question of payment of back wages is a question to be decided on the basis of evidence. It is true, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Narayan Bajpai (supra)that the question of payment of back wages is a question to be decided on the basis of evidence. If during the intervening period of termination and the order of re-instatement, the employee was not working also where gainfully, the back wages can not be denied in the instant case however, there is no record to show that after his termination the petitioner was employed under any other employer. The principle of no work no pay cannot be made applicable in such a situation where an employee is forced and compelled to be away from his duties on a result of illegal orders of termination. The fact that the petitioner did not hand over the charge, a factor which has been stressed upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank cannot also be a justification to deprive the petitioner of the back wages. In our opinion, the Board of Revenue and the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative societies were clearly in error in not granting the relief of full back wages to the petitioner. The order of the Joint Registrar, in our opinion deserves to be up-held and confirmed. ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 10-9-1979 (Annexure-E) of the deputy Registrar and dated 10-4-1983 (Annexure-H) of the Board of Revenue are hereby quashed. It is directed that the respondents shall pay all arrears of salary to the petitioner from the date of his illegal termination to the date of his re-instatement. This shall be done within a reasonable period of six months from today. The amount of security, if deposited, will be refunded to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs of this petition. Petition allowed. .