Honble SHETHNA, J.– Learned counsel Sh. G.K. Vyas stated that he is no more a panel lawyer, therefore, this matter may be adjourned. This is a petition of 1995 which was filed by Sh. G.K. Vyas therefore, I have directed Mr. Vyas to proceed with the matter. (2). Respondent No. 1 Dilip Singh workman who was working as baildar since 7.1.1987 was discontinued from service, therefore, he approached labour court and the labour court by an award dated 19th July, 1993 (Annex.3) set aside his termination and reinstated him in service with full back wages. Labour Court also granted three months time to pay arrears from the date of publication of award. It has made clear that on failure to comply with the award, the employer has to pay 12% interest. Cost of Rs. 100/- was quantified. Against that award this petition was initially filed by Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., Nohar, Dist. Sriganganagar in his individual capacity on 18.8.1994 i.e. after a period of one year of award. The matter remained under defects and after the defects were removed regular number was given to this petition only in 1995. (3). On 17.5.1995, learned Single Judge of this Court ordered to issue notice to show cause as to why this petition should not be admitted on the submissions being made by the learned counsel Sh. Vyas for the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had not completed 240 days as per his own say. Mean While the operation of the award dated 19.7.1993 passed by the labour Court was stayed till 20.7.1995. However learned counsel Shri D.K. Parihar states that the workman was already taken back in service in pursuance to the impugned award. (4). The petition filed by Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. in his individual capacity was not maintainable. It was the state of Rajasthan who had to challenge the impugned award before this Court because the Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D. is only an agent of the State and in his individual capacity he could not have challenged the award. From the record of the case it appears that application dated 22.7.1998 was filed by the Executive Engineer in this petition for joining the State of Rajasthan as party to the petition. The same was allowed on 3.12.1998 and accordingly amended cause title is filed. From the record of the case it appears that application dated 22.7.1998 was filed by the Executive Engineer in this petition for joining the State of Rajasthan as party to the petition. The same was allowed on 3.12.1998 and accordingly amended cause title is filed. Thus, State of Rajasthan has challenged the impugned award through his Executive Engineer by the amended cause title in 1998. (5). Learned counsel Sh. Vyas vehemently submitted that the labour court co- mmitted a grave error in passing the award in favour of the workman on the basis of document annexure 5 which is hand written. Mr. Vyas submitted that there was manipulation in it to show that the workman had completed 240 days. This was considered by the labour court itself in the impugned award. Considering the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence led by the parties, the labour court came to the conclusion that the workman had completed 243 days in one calendar year. Under the circumstances, the labour court held that the termination of the workman was in clear violation of section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, termination order was set aside and authorities were directed to reinstate him in service with back wages. (6). This petition is labelled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but, strictly speaking it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of which is very narrow and limited. This Court cannot reappreciate the evidence in its supervisionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Once the labour court on appreciation of the documentary as well as oral evidence has come to the conclusion that workman had completed 240 days in a calendar year then such finding cannot be interfered by this Court in its jurisdiction. (7). Second submission of Mr. Vyas that respondent workman himself abandoned the service cannot be accepted. The respondent workman was not allowed to continue in 1987, therefore, he immediately approached the Government and reference was made in 1989 by the Government. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent workman had abandoned the service. (8). Lastly Mr. Vyas vehemently submitted that the labour court should not have awarded full back wages to the respondent workman from the date of termination which was passed in 1987. He submitted that `no work no pay principle should apply. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent workman had abandoned the service. (8). Lastly Mr. Vyas vehemently submitted that the labour court should not have awarded full back wages to the respondent workman from the date of termination which was passed in 1987. He submitted that `no work no pay principle should apply. He submitted that at the most some compensation should have been awarded to the workman by the labour court. He, therefore, submitted that at least the order of full back wages passed by the labour court be modified by this Court by awarding suitable compensation to the respondent. Ordinarily, when the order of termination is set aside then the consequential order of back wages must follow. In a given case, it appears that there was an attempt on the part of the Executive Engineer to see to it that the respondent workman should not complete 240 days, therefore, his services were terminated for no fault of the workman. Workman was made to starve because of the high handed action of the Executive Engineer. The respondent workman immediately approached the State Government and in turn the Government made a reference to the labour court. There was no evidence led by the Executive Engineer to show that the respondent workman worked somewhere else during that period. In absence of such material, when the labour court in its discretion awarded full back wages to the respondent then this Court would not interfere with such order. Mr. Vyas submitted that awarding back wages for almost 6 years would be a great burden on the public exchequer and the State should not be made to suffer. I wholly agree on this point with Mr. Vyas that the State Government should not be made to suffer. At the same time the respondent workman cannot be deprived of his legitimate right of getting back wages. It is not a case where the respondent workman was not willing to work, he was very much willing to work but due to high handed action of the then Executive Engineer, Nohar the respondent workman was deprived of his legitimate right. (9). Under the circumstances, the State Government is directed to fully comply with the award passed by the labour court. (9). Under the circumstances, the State Government is directed to fully comply with the award passed by the labour court. However, amount of back wages which is to be paid by the State Government to the respondent workman shall be recovered from the then Executive Engineer, P.H.E.D., Nohar, who has filed this petition. (10). In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merit in this petition and accordingly it fails and is hereby dismissed.