JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. As per report of the Registry, respondent No. 1 stands served. As no one has put in appearance on its behalf, said respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. 2. By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the award passed by learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P. dated 11.01.2013 in Reference No. 16 of 2006, titled as Naseeb Chand vs. The Manager Component and Equipment Ltd. 3. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that following Reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication:- "Whether the termination of services of Shri Naseeb Chand S/o Shri Balak Ram by the Manager Component and Equipment Ltd. Plot No. 120, Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 8.12.2003 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation, the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?" 4. Vide Award dated 11.01.2013, the Reference was answered by the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court in the following terms:- "For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner is allowed and as such the termination of services of petitioner w.e.f. 8.12.2003 by the respondent is set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be reinstatement in service with immediate effect with seniority and continuity but without back wages and the reference is decided in negative. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion, be consigned to records." 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that denial of the back wages to the petitioner/workman despite the learned Tribunal coming to the conclusion that the termination of services of the petitioner herein was bad in law, is per se not sustainable in the eyes of law, and accordingly, she submits that the Award under challenge may be modified to the extent that the petitioner/workman be held entitled for back wages. 6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that there is no perversity with the Award passed by the learned Tribunal because it is the discretion vested in the learned Tribunal to decide that the back wages are to be granted or to be denied to the workman. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that there is no perversity with the Award passed by the learned Tribunal because it is the discretion vested in the learned Tribunal to decide that the back wages are to be granted or to be denied to the workman. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the Award under challenge as also the documents appended with the petition. 8. A perusal of the Award under challenge demonstrates that the following reasoning stands mentioned as to why the learned Tribunal has not awarded back wages in favour of the workman: "However, the petitioner is not entitled to back wages as it is settled law that back wages cannot be granted mechanically when the order of termination is declared illegal. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, to my mind the petitioner is not entitled to back wages. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of petitioner." 9. In my considered view, the reasoning, as it stands mentioned in the Award under challenge, holding the workman as being not entitled to back wages, is not sustainable in law. There is no denial of the fact that back wages are not to be granted mechanically when the order of termination of services of the workman is declared illegal. However, there has to be a judicial application of mind by the Court concerned, both in the event of grant of back wages as also denial of the same. In other words, whether or not in a particular case, workman has to be granted back wages, conclusion thereof has to be drawn by the learned Court on the basis of evidence which has been led by the parties on record. Reasons has to be spelled out in the Award as to why the back wages are either being granted or being denied to the workman. Said claim cannot be brushed aside or declined to a workman by returning a cryptic finding that it is settled law that back wages cannot be granted mechanically when the order of termination is declared illegal. Said claim cannot be brushed aside or declined to a workman by returning a cryptic finding that it is settled law that back wages cannot be granted mechanically when the order of termination is declared illegal. It is equally well settled law that wherever back wages are to be denied to the workman, then it is incumbent upon the employer to demonstrate before the Court that during the period for which services of the workman remained illegally terminated, he was gainfully employed and if the employer fails to prove the same on the basis of cogent evidence on record, the workman can be held entitled for back wages. In case, there is cogent evidence led by the employer, then, by referring to the documents placed on record, findings can be returned by the learned Court below declining back wages to the workman. This is a remiss in the impugned Award. Denial of back wages has been ordered by the learned Tribunal in a mechanical manner without assigning any reasons on the basis of evidence and pleadings. 10. Accordingly this petition is partly allowed. Award dated 11.01.2013, passed by learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, in Reference No. 16 of 2006, titled as Naseeb Chand vs. The Manager Component and Equipment Ltd. is partly set aside with regard to the findings returned by the learned Tribunal qua Issue No. 2 and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal with the direction to return fresh findings qua Issue No. 2 on the basis of evidence and pleadings of the parties on record after affording reasonable opportunities of being heard to both the parties. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.