Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Saxena for the respondents. The award of the Labour Court was published in the year 2009 directing reinstatement of the workman and in lieu of back wages compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded. The services of the petitioner workman was terminated in the year 1991, which was referred for adjudication in the year 1993. The award was given in the year 2009. The employers have accepted the award and have reinstated the workman and has also paid the compensation of Rs.50000/- in lieu of back wages. The petitioner has now approached this Court challenging that part of the award by which back wages has been denied. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion, that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. In the first instance the Court finds, that the award was made in the year 2009. No explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why he has approached the Court belatedly. Consequently, on the ground of laches, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned award. The Court further finds that compensation in lieu of back wages has already been received by the petitioner without any protest. Once the award has been complied with and the amount of compensation has been received by the workman without any protest, it is no longer open for him to turn around and approach the writ court questioning the denial of back wages. Such practice at the behest of the workman at this belated stage is deprecated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parameter evolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur Electric Supply Company Ltd. Vs. Shamim Mirza, 2009 Lab our Industrial Cases 415, has not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court while denying the grant of back wages. In the said decision the Supreme Court held as under: "It is true that once the order of termination of service of an employee is set aside, ordinarily the relief of reinstatement is available to him. However, the entitlement of an employee to get reinstated does not necessarily result in payment of full or partial back-wages, which is independent of reinstatement. However, the entitlement of an employee to get reinstated does not necessarily result in payment of full or partial back-wages, which is independent of reinstatement. While dealing with the prayer of back- wages, factual scenario, equity and good conscience and a number of other factors, like the manner of selection; nature of appointment; the period for which the employee has worked with the employer etc.; have to be kept in view. All these factors are illustrative and no precise formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances full or partial back-wages should be awarded. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case." Similarly in General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh, 2005 ( 5) SCC 591 , the Supreme Court held that there cannot be a straight jacket formula for awarding the relief of back wages and that an order of back wages should not be passed in a mechanical manner. A host of factors like manner, method of selection and appointment and nature of appointment whether adhoc, short term daily wages, temporary or permanent and length of service should be taken into consideration before granting back wages. Similarly in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan and another vs. S.C.Sharma, 2005( 2)SCC 363, the Supreme Court held that applying the aforesaid principle the inevitable conclusion is, that the respondent was not entitled to full back wages. For determining the entitlement of back wages the employee has to show that he was not gainfully employed and that the initial burden was on him. In the instance case the Labour Court has held that there is a presumption that the workman was gainfully employed as he was a driver. No evidence has been filed by the Workman before the Labour Court to indicate that he was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. Further, there is nothing on record to show the nature of the appointment of the workman, the length of appointment and whether the workman was appointed on a temporary or a permanent post. In the absence of all these evidence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award. Writ petition fails summarily and is dismissed.