JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant petition is directed against the impugned award of 31.5.2011, rendered by the Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, whereby it, while answering the hereinafter extracted reference in favour of the workman determined that given its findings qua the workman/petitioner having come to be illegally retrenched or disengaged by the respondent No. 2, he be reinstated or reengaged in service. “Whether the termination of services of Shri Udho Ram S/o Shri Govind Ram workman by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Shimla, H.P w.e.f 19.1.1999 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?” 2. The relief of reinstatement of the petitioner in service by the respondent concerned, was ordered with the benefit of seniority to be computed from the date of his illegal termination. However, the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla omitted to grant back wages to the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the omission on the part of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court concerned to award him back wages from the date of his illegal retrenchment/termination from service at the instance of the respondent No. 2 till his reengagement in service. The said portion of the award rendered by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Shimla, stands impugned before this Court at the instance of the petitioner/workman herein. 3. It is settled law that the relief of back wages would only be affordable to the workman on his retrenchment/disengagement from service having been concluded to be illegal, besides in the event of material existing on record portraying that since his illegal retrenchment/disengagement from service till his reinstatement in service at the instance of the respondent concerned in pursuance to an executable order rendered by the Court/Forum concerned, he was not gainfully employed. The evidentiary material on record which portrays the factum of the petitioner herein being not gainfully employed since his illegal retrenchment/termination till his reinstatement in service at the instance of the respondent concerned in pursuance to the impugned award comprised in Annexure P-1, is comprised in the testimony of petitioner in his examination in chief. The evidentiary material on record which portrays the factum of the petitioner herein being not gainfully employed since his illegal retrenchment/termination till his reinstatement in service at the instance of the respondent concerned in pursuance to the impugned award comprised in Annexure P-1, is comprised in the testimony of petitioner in his examination in chief. The veracity of the statement of the petitioner comprised in his examination-in-chief while unfolding the factum of his having remained not gainfully employed from the period of his illegal retrenchment/disengagement from service till his reinstatement in service, has not been concerted to be shred apart or shattered by the learned counsel for the respondent, by proceeding to put an apposite suggestion partying, its contest to the said fact. Consequently, omission on the part of the respondents to concert to repudiate or tear apart the veracity of the deposition of the petitioner in his examination in chief unearthing the factum of his having remained not gainfully employed since his illegal termination/ disengagement from service by the respondent No. 2 till his reinstatement in service imputes/lends credibility to it, besides leads to the sequel that the respondents acquiesce to the factum of the petitioner having not remained gainfully employed since his illegal retrenchment/disengagement in service, till his reinstatement in service, at the instance of the respondent No. 2 in pursuance to the impugned award comprised in Annexure P-1. Consequently, with hence ample proof emanating qua the factum of the petitioner having remained not gainfully employed since his illegal retrenchment/disengagement from service till his reinstatement in service, it was incumbent upon the Presiding judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla to proceed to award back wages in the quantum of 50% from the date of his illegal retrenchment/disengagement from service till his reinstatement in service at the instance of the respondent No. 2 in pursuance to Annexure P-1. However his having omitted to do so has sequelled perpetration of injustice upon the petitioner, which hence necessitates its being undone. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has with vehemence contended before this Court that the belated raising of the industrial dispute at the instance of the petitioner/ workman ought to preclude this Court to determine back wages. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has with vehemence contended before this Court that the belated raising of the industrial dispute at the instance of the petitioner/ workman ought to preclude this Court to determine back wages. However, the said submission succumbs in the face of the learned counsel for the respondent aforesaid having not pleaded the said fact in its response to the claim instituted by the petitioner/workman before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The aforesaid omission sequelled non-framing of an apposite issue qua it, obviously no findings could be returned thereupon. The effect thereof is that the respondents hence acquiesce to the factum of the industrial dispute raised at the instance of the petitioner/workman being not vitiated with staleness. As such, his contention before this Court that with hence the industrial dispute being vitiated with the vice of staleness the relief of back wages is unaffordable to the petitioner, gets emaciated. 5. Consequently, the impugned award is interfered with, to the extent that its omitting to award back wages to the petitioner in the quantum of 50% from the date of his illegal retrenchment/disengagement till his reinstatement in service is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to hence defray 50% of the back wages to the petitioner from the date of his illegal retrenchment/disengagement till his re-engagement in service within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In view of above, the present petition stands disposed of, as also, the pending applications, if any.