JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner assails the award dated 12/10/2010 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Alwar to the extent it has denied back wages to him while holding the order of termination dated 13/11/2004 as illegal and unjustified and holding him entitled to be reinstated. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner has been held entitled for reinstatement, the learned Labour Court has failed to make observations relating to back wages. Counsel submits that the petitioner has remained out of job from 01/04/2006. He was engaged by a contractor for an amount of Rs.73/- for eight hours on temporary basis as he had family to take care of and for survival there was no other means of livelihood while he was getting regular pay scale as Burner with the respondent-company and therefore, the learned Labour Court ought to have granted back wages. 3. The case had come up after notice and the petitioner has pointed out that the award dated 12/10/2010 passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement had not been complied with and therefore, the concerned Director of the respondent-company was called who thereafter allowed the petitioner to join. However, on account of the petitioner having attained superannuation on completion of 58 years of service, the petitioner’s services were eased out on 31/08/2018 alongwith payment of amount of gratuity etc. The question now, therefore, is only with regard to award of back wages. 4. In a recent judgment, the Apex Court in the case of the Management of Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D. Ranchi Vs. Their Workman Rep. By District Secretary: 2018(11) SCALE 353 has held that upon reinstatement, the question relating to grant of back wage is not automatic. The workman shall have to plead that he was not in gainful employment and reasons have to be given for granting back wages. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “11. In our considered opinion, the Courts below completely failed to see that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside of his dismissal/termination order. In other words, a workman has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service. 12. In other words, a workman has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service. 12. It is necessary for the workman in such cases to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from the service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself or/and his family. The employer is also entitled to prove it otherwise against the employee, namely, that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any back wages. Initial burden is, however, on the employee. 13. In some cases, the Court may decline to award the back wages in its entirety whereas in some cases, it may award partial depending upon the facts of each case by exercising its judicial discretion in the light of the facts and evidence. The questions, how the back wages is required to be decided, what are the factors to be taken into consideration awarding back wages, on whom the initial burden lies etc. were elaborately discussed in several cases by this Court wherein the law on these questions has been settled. Indeed, it is no longer res integra. These cases are, M.P. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.), (2003) 6 SCC 141 , G.M. Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh, (2005) 5 SCC 591 , U.P. State Brassware Corporation v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 , J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and Anr., (2007) 2 SCC 433 , Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan,: (2009) 9 SCC 601 , Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr.,: (2009) 15 SCC 327 ) and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) and Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324 .” 5. In light of the aforesaid judgment, a look at the present case shows that the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 13/11/2004 and he has taken up employment on the wages of Rs.73/- per day w.e.f. 01/04/2006 which has to be treated as gainful. Thus, for the period from 13/11/2004 to 01/04/2006 the petitioner has remained out of employment. While thereafter he has remained in gainful employment though not of the same level as he was receiving from the respondents. 6. Thus, for the period from 13/11/2004 to 01/04/2006 the petitioner has remained out of employment. While thereafter he has remained in gainful employment though not of the same level as he was receiving from the respondents. 6. Be that as it may, in light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to grant back wages to the petitioner from 13/01/2004 to 31/03/2006. However, thereafter since the petitioner has remained in gainful employment, no wages shall be admissible to him. However, treating the period as continuity in service, any other benefits to which the petitioner may be entitled on superannuation would also be admissible to him in terms of gratuity and otherwise. In this regard, the delay in payment of share of gratuity on the part of the respondents shall be ignored by the concerned authorities. 7. With the said observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.