ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. When the case is called out, counsel for the appellant is absent. 2. We have heard counsel for the respondents at length, who has mainly submitted that earlier this appellant (original petitioner) was dismissed from service vide order dated 19th August, 1994. Thereafter, a writ petition being W.P. (S) No.5913 of 2006 was preferred by this appellant, in which vide judgment dated 8th May, 2009, the order of dismissal dated 19th August, 1994 was quashed and set aside. So far as another prayer in W.P. (S) No.5913 of 2006 for back wages is concerned, no order was passed. 3. Against this judgment dated 8th May, 2009 passed in W.P. (S) No.5913 of 2006, neither any Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by this appellant, nor a review application was preferred by the appellant. Thus, the judgment dated 8th May, 2009 passed in W.P. (S) No.5913 of 2006 has attained its finality, meaning thereby to, that, out of the two prayers, one prayer was allowed and no order was passed for prayer No.2. 4. It further appears from the facts of the case that thereafter, the instant writ petition has been preferred by this appellant being W.P. (S) No.6198 of 2010 for getting back wages for the period running from 19th August, 1994 (date of dismissal) till 25th April, 2010 (date of reinstatement). 5. It appears that in the earlier writ petition being W.P. (S) No.5913 of 2006, though there was a prayer for back wages, the same was never granted by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 8th May, 2009 and hence, for the very same purpose, no second writ petition can be preferred. Moreover, no Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 8th May, 2009 in W.P. (S) No. 5913 of 2006, nor any revision petition has been preferred by this appellant. Thus, the order passed by the Court in W.P. (S) No.5913 of 2006 dated 8th May, 2009 has attained its finality. 6. Moreover, it ought to be kept in mind that whenever an order of dismissal is quashed and set aside and the employee is reinstated, there cannot be any mechanical order of payment of full back wages. The petitioner has to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. 6. Moreover, it ought to be kept in mind that whenever an order of dismissal is quashed and set aside and the employee is reinstated, there cannot be any mechanical order of payment of full back wages. The petitioner has to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. Nothing has been pointed out by this appellant that he was not gainfully employed for the period running from 19th August, 1994 (date of dismissal) till 25th April, 2010 (date of reinstatement). 7. It has been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey reported in (2006) 1 SCC 479 at paragraphs 22 and 45 as under:- 22. No precise formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances payment of entire back wages should be allowed. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It would, however, not be correct to contend that it is automatic. It should not be granted mechanically only because on technical grounds or otherwise an order of termination is found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 45. The Court, therefore, emphasised that while granting relief, application of mind on the part of the Industrial Court is imperative. Payment of full back wages, therefore, cannot be the natural consequence.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. It has also been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of HUDA v. Om Pal reported in (2007) 5 SCC 742 at paragraph 7 as under:- “7. Moreover, it is also now well settled that despite a wide discretionary power conferred upon the Industrial Courts under Section 11-A of the 1947 Act, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages should not be granted automatically only because it would be lawful to do so. Grant of relief would depend on the fact situation obtaining in each case. It will depend upon several factors, one of which would be as to whether the recruitment was effected in terms of the statutory provisions operating in the field, if any.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. It has further been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Reshma Ramesh Meher reported in (2008) 8 SCC 664 at paragraph 24 as under:- “24. It has further been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Reshma Ramesh Meher reported in (2008) 8 SCC 664 at paragraph 24 as under:- “24. 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. While dealing with the prayer of back wages, factual scenario, equity and good conscience, 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 and circumstances are illustrative and no precise or abstract 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. It has also been held by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of C.N. Malla v State of J&K reported in (2009) 9 SCC 597 at paragraph 11 as under:- “11. The legal position is fairly settled by a catena of decisions that direction to pay back wages in its entirety is not automatic consequent upon declaration of dismissal order bad in law. The concept of discretion is inbuilt in such exercise. The court is required to exercise discretion reasonably and judiciously keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Each case, of course, would depend on its own facts.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. In view of the aforesaid decisions also, there cannot be a mathematical corollary that whenever there is a quashing of dismissal order and whenever the workman is reinstated after some passage of time, there is a bound to be an order of full back wages. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and as no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P. (S) No.6198 of 2010 vide judgment and order dated 8th August, 2014, we are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed.