ORDER : N. Santosh Hegde, J. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to back wages in view of the fact that he was gainfully employed during the period when he was not in employment of the appellant. The courts below have rejected the prayer sought for by the appellant State on the ground of maintainability. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 25-1-2005 we called upon the learned counsel for the respondent to produce the material to show the respondent's source and quantum of income earned by him during the relevant period and also to file a copy of the income tax return filed for the relevant period. Today learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits, under instructions from his client that during the relevant period he was gainfully employed by self-employment. 2. So far as the directions for reinstatement are concerned, it is admitted that the respondent has already been reinstated in the year 2000. Taking into consideration the directions to pay back wages even on the background of the fact that the respondent workman was gainfully employed during the relevant period and the respondent has not suffered during that period financially, leaving open the question of maintainability raised before the courts below regarding the maintainability of second review petition, on the facts of this case we allow this appeal and set aside the directions to pay the back wages. We, however, on facts of this case make it clear that if any amount has been paid by the appellant to the respondent as back wages pursuant to the directions issued by the Labour Court the same shall not be recovered.