JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Both these petitions are directed against the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) New No. 364/1995 (Old No. 101/2007, 134/2009) dated December 11, 2009, whereby, the reference of the Petitioner was allowed and the Respondent has been directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service but, without any back wages. By way of filing S.C.A. No. 7239/2010, the Petitioner-workman has challenged that part of the award, whereby, he was not granted any back wages and by way of filing S.C.A. No. 1246/2010, the Respondent-employer has challenged the award granting reinstatement with continuity of service to the workman. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner-employee was appointed as a Clerk in the Respondent-Mandli on March 23, 1992. However, on April 18, 1995, his services were terminated. Therefore, he raised an industrial dispute, which, ultimately, culminated into a reference before the Court below. The Court below, after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the reference, as aforesaid. Hence, these petitions. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. From the oral & documentary evidence on record, the Court below recorded the finding that the Respondent had appointed several employees and that at the relevant time the Petitioner-workman was not offered any appointment. It was established from the record that the Respondent had committed breach of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the impugned action of the Respondent terminating the services of the Petitioner-workman is bad in law and erroneous. 3. So far as the question regarding back wages is concerned, it appeared from the record that the workman was gainfully employed during the interregnum period. In the case of Ram Ahsrey Singh and Another Vs. Ram Bux Singh and Others (2003) 9 SCC 154 , the Apex Court has held that a workman has no automatic entitlement to back wages since it is discretionary and has to be dealt with in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh, AIR 2005 SC 3966 wherein, it has been held that an order for payment of back wages should not be passed in a mechanical manner but, a host of factors are to be taken into consideration before passing any such order. 4. It would also be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) and Others Vs. Abdul Kareem, AIR 2005 SC 3791 , wherein it has been held that a workman is not entitled to any consequential relief on reinstatement as a matter of course unless specifically directed by forum granting reinstatement. Looking to the facts of the case and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner-workman cannot be said to be entitled for any back wages. Hence, the Court below was justified in not granting any back wages. 5. In view of the above discussion, both the petitions are dismissed. Notice is discharged.