JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. Order dated 1-7-09, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide impugned order, Tribunal affirmed the order dated 4-8-06 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which in turn affirmed the order passed by the respondent/Bank declining the claim of the petitioner for grant of back wages by its order dated 27-7-05. 3. Relevant facts briefly are that, having being appointed as Lower Division Clerk on probation, the petitioner was regularised as Lower Division Clerk in grade Rs. 870/- - 1580/- by order dated 30-5-89. 4. That petitioner thereafter, absented herself from duty unauthorized whereon her services were terminated by order dated 16-2-91. Aggrieved, petitioner raised dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on 12-3-92 before the Competent Authority. The dispute was entertained by condoning the delay where against the respondent/Bank unsuccessfully preferred appeal and revision. 5. That finally by order dated 28-6-05, the dispute raised by the petitioner was decided in her favour were he was directed to be reinstated. It is admitted fact that the petitioner since old claim the back wages, the same was not granted to her. Petitioner allowed the said order to attain finality. That in furtherance to the order of reinstatement, she preferred a representation in 8-7-05 before the Competent Authority. Consequently, by order dated 27-7-05, the petitioner was reinstated in service, in compliance to o der passed by the Competent Authority in a dispute raised under Section 55 (2) of 1960 Act. 6. Apparently, claim of the petitioner for grant of back wages was turned down as the same was neither claimed nor granted by the Competent Authority. Aggrieved, petitioner raised another dispute under Section 55 (2) of the 1960 Act, before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jabalpur, who by his order dated 4-8-06 though declined to grant the claim for back wages, however, allowed the same to the extent of the claim for fixation of pay at par with the junior, who was regularised w.e.f. 14-11-87 notionally. 7. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 78 (2) of the 1960 Act, who by order dated 1-7-09, dismissed the same by upholding the order passed by the Joint Registrar. 8. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition. 9. 7. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 78 (2) of the 1960 Act, who by order dated 1-7-09, dismissed the same by upholding the order passed by the Joint Registrar. 8. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition. 9. It is urged that, having been dismissed from service without taking recourse to any proceeding and having succeeded in getting order of reinstatement, the petitioner is entitled for the entire back wages for the period when she was out of job. It is urged that, it was none of the fault of the petitioner. That during period when she was out of job, she was not gainfully employed. 10. In respect of contention of no gainful employment, petitioner has placed reliance on the averments made in claim put forth before the Joint Registrar under Section 55 (2) of the Act of 1960. It is urged that, since there was no denial of the fact that, petitioner was not gainfully employed, during the period when she was kept away from employment, i.e., during period of termination, incumbent it was upon the Joint Registrar and the Tribunal to have granted her the back wages. 11. Respondents on their turn deny the claim put forth by the petitioner. It is contended that the claim for back wages being an inseparable part of the claim for reinstatement and the petitioner having not claimed the back wages when she raised the dispute under Section 55 (2) of the 1960 Act, against her termination and no order to that effect having been passed by the Joint Registrar and the petitioner having allowed the said order to attain finality, is not entitled for the back wages in a dispute separately raised. 12. It is urged that the dispute raised under Section 55 (2) of 1960 Act in the year 1995 was in respect of fixation of pay at par with the junior, who was regularised w.e.f. 14-11-87 and that the claim for back wages was also linked with the same. It is contended that Joint Registrar before whom the claim was raised was justified in allowing the fixation of pay at par with junior w.e.f. 14-11-87, notionally, and rightly declined the claim of the petitioner for back wages. 13. It is contended that Joint Registrar before whom the claim was raised was justified in allowing the fixation of pay at par with junior w.e.f. 14-11-87, notionally, and rightly declined the claim of the petitioner for back wages. 13. It is further contended that even in the second dispute raised for back wages no cogent and admissible evidence has been led that she was not gainfully employed for the period during termination. It is accordingly contended that the petitioner has rightly been held not entitled for back wages for the period when she was not in job. 14. Considered the rival submission. Admittedly, in dispute raised against the termination order dated 16-2-91, the petitioner did not claim back wages nor the same was granted when the petitioner was directed for reinstatement by order dated 28-6-05. Petitioner did not challenge the same and allowed the same to attain finality. Instead clubbing the same for fixation of pay at par with the junior, who was regularised w.e.f. 14-11-87, the petitioner raised the claim For grant of back wages in a dispute raised for second time in the year 2005. However, except bald statement in the claim petition, no cogent evidence was led by the petitioner to establish the fact that during the period of termination, the petitioner was not gainfully employed. 15. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others Vs. Ananta Saha and others, (2011) 5 SCC 142 , it has been held :- "49. The issue of entitlement of back wages has been considered by this Court time and again and consistently held that even after punishment imposed upon the employee is quashed by the Court or Tribunal, the payment of back wages still remains discretionary. Power of grant back wages is to be exercised by the Court/Tribunal keeping in view the facts in their entirety as no strait-jacket formula can be evolved, nor a rule of universal application can be laid for such cases. Even if the delinquent is reinstated, it would not automatically make him entitled for back wages as entitlement to get back wages is independent of reinstatement. The factual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an Appropriate Authority/Court or Tribunal. In such matters, the approach of the Court or the Tribunal should not be rigid or mechanical, but flexible and realistic. The factual scenario and the principles of justice, equity and good conscience have to be kept in view by an Appropriate Authority/Court or Tribunal. In such matters, the approach of the Court or the Tribunal should not be rigid or mechanical, but flexible and realistic. [Vide : U.P. SRTC Vs. Mitthu Singh, AIR 2006 SC 3018 ; Akola Taluka Education Society and another Vs. Shivaji, (2007) 9 SCC 564 ; and Managing Director, Balasaheb Desai Sahakari S.K. Limited Vs. Kashinath Ganapati Kambale, (2009) 2 SCC 288]." 16. In the case at hand, since the petitioner herself has not claimed back wages and the same having not been granted in a dispute raised by her against termination of 1991 and having allowed the order of reinstatement to attain finality, the claim of the petitioner for grant of back wages subsequently does not subsist. The Joint Registrar as well as the Tribunal in our considered opinion, were justified in not acceding the claim put forth by the petitioner. 17. In the result, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.