Judgment GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. ( 1 ) (SHORTLY referred to as "samiti") has filed this writ petition challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur dated 18/10/1995 wherein it has ordered reinstatement of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the service of the petitioner-Samiti and has also granted compensation to the respondents at Rs. 1500/-per year from the year 1988 upto the date of their reinstatement. ( 2 ) IT has been stated by the petitioners advocate that the respondents have already been reinstated in service and this writ petition essentially is pressed against the order granting compensation. In that context the counsel for the parties were heard from which it could be noticed that as per the case of the respondents-workmen they were engaged as safai-Karamchari in the services of the petitioner-Samiti, but from 10/06/1983 their attendance were not marked and finally in the year 1988 their services were terminated without giving any notice or pay in lieu of notice, It was their further case that for the period of 1983 to 1988 they had filed an application before the Payment of Wages authority for their wages as the same were not paid to them although they were discharging their duties as safai-Karamchari but their attendance were arbitrarily not marked in the register. Thus, the respondents specific case was that from the year 1988 onwards they did not remain in the service of the petitioner-samiti and their terminations were illegal. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner-Samiti, on the other hand, was that the respondents never worked with the Mandi Samiti after 1983 and the plea of the respondents that they discharged their duties upto the year 1988 after which their services were terminated, was not correct. In fact after 1983, they had initially failed to discharge their duties. ( 4 ) THE learned Judge of the Labour Court on a scrutiny of the evidence on record was pleased to record a finding that the services of the respondents-workmen were terminated on 12/02/1988 without any notice to them 5 or giving them pay in lieu of the notice. It was therefore held that this was clearly a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence they were held entitled for reinstatement. It was therefore held that this was clearly a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and hence they were held entitled for reinstatement. ( 5 ) IN so far as grant of back wages is concerned, the learned Judge of the Labour court categorically recorded a finding against the respondents holding therein that they have failed to prove, their case that they were not 5 gainfully employed elsewhere after their termination in the year 1988. Hence their claim for back wages was rejected, but the learned judge opined that they are entitled for compensation at Rs. 1500/- per year ever-since 1988. The petitioner-Samiti infact has assailed, this part of the award urging that this relief regarding payment of compensation to the respondent No. 3 should be set aside. ( 6 ) HAVING considered the challenge the of the petitioner to this part of the impugned award, it clearly could be noticed that as per the case of the contesting respondents themselves, their services were terminated after 1988 which has been set aside and prior to that they had already received their wages by order of the Payment of Wages Authority. Once a finding has been recorded by the Labour court that the respondents are not entitled for back wages as they failed to prove that they were not gainfully employed after 1988, it is difficult to appreciate on what basis the Labour court has awarded compensation @ Rs. 1500/-per year uptill the date of their reinstatement. The Labour Court, in my view, could have granted back wages, if the respondents could 1 prove that they were not gainfully employed during the period in which they were out of the job or would have denied back wages if the position was otherwise as has already been held by the Labour Court. A third option for the labour Court granting compensation in absence of any finding that the respondents were not gainfully employed, was not legally permissible in the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 7 ) IN that view of the matter the order granting compensation at Rs. 1500/- per year to the respondents uptill the date of their reinstatement is not fit to be sustained. Consequently the award to the extent that it grants payment of Rs. 1500/- per year from 1988 up to the date of their reinstatement is set aside. ( 7 ) IN that view of the matter the order granting compensation at Rs. 1500/- per year to the respondents uptill the date of their reinstatement is not fit to be sustained. Consequently the award to the extent that it grants payment of Rs. 1500/- per year from 1988 up to the date of their reinstatement is set aside. The writ petition thus stands partly allowed.