Rao, J.:— In this writ appeal, the appellant Singareni Collieries, Ltd., is questioning the view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15354 of 1989 by which the appellant was directed to “give all attendant benefits including that of payment of back-wages from the date of termination of the respondents herein till their reinstatement.” “Pursuant to the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6798 of 1983, dated 12 December, 1983, by which the order of the termination was quashed, the respondents-workmen were reinstated in service on 21 March, 1984 but no back-wages were paid. Some other workmen similarly circumstanced as the respondents herein filed Writ Petition No. 16373 of 1984, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 6 February, 1986, specifically granting back-wages besides reinstatement. Later on, the respondents approached the appellant-company claiming back-wages and as the same was not conceded, they fifed Writ Petition No. 15353 of 1989, which as already stated was allowed by the learned Single Judge basing on the decision in Writ Petition No. 16373 of 1984.
2. In this writ appeal, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the mere fact of reinstatement, no conclusion would follow that the workmen were entitled to back-wages and there was no specific plea that the workmen were not gainfully employed during the interregnum between the order of termination and the order of reinstatement. We are unable to agree. From the judgment under appeal, it appears that no such objection was taken before the teamed Single Judge. Further it is sealed law that “where the termination is illegal, especially where there is an ineffective order of retrenchment, there is neither termination nor cessation of service and a declaration follows that the workman concerned continues to be in service with all consequential benefits. See Mohan Lal v. Management Of M/S Bharat Electronics Ltd., Ltd. [1981 (2) L.L.N 23]. Even if the affected workman had taken up employment for short periods in order to save himself from starvation, it was ruled by the Supreme Court that the wages earned by him during that period should not be reckoned in the computation of payment of back-wages. It was held in S.G Chemicals and Dyes Trading Employees Union v. S.G Chemicals and Dyes Trading Ltd. [1986 (1) L.L.N 986], in Para. 24 at pages 1004 and 1005:
“It was lastly submitted that several employees must have taken up alternative employment during the intervening period between the date of the dosure of the churchgate division and the hearing of this appeal and an inquiry, therefore, should be directed to be made into the amounts received by them from such alterative employment so as to set off the amounts so received against the back-wages and future salary payable to them, It is difficult to see why these eighty-four workmen should be put to further harassment for the wrongful act of the company. It is possible that rather than starve while awaking the final decision on their complaint some of these workmen may have taken alternative employment. The period which has elapsed is, however, too short for the moneys received by such workmen from the alternative employment taken by them to aggregate to any sizeable amount, and it would be fair to let the workmen retail such amount, by way of solatium for the shock of having their services terminated, the anxiety and agony caused thereby, and the endeavours, perhaps often fruitless, to find alternative employment.”
3. What needs to be noticed in the instant case is that on the last occasion, when the matter came up for hearing, an objection was taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no specific plea that the workmen were not gainfully employed, To this, Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the respondents-workmen, responded by saying that his clients would file affidavits to the effect that they were not gainfully employed during the interregnum. Accordingly six affidavits have been filed before us to that effect by all the six workmen. In tine circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order under appeal.
4. The writ appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed with costs.