17. On the issue of whether reinstatement, consequent on termination of an employee being held illegal, necessarily entails, in its wake, award of full back wages, there is wealth of authority. In A.L. Kalra vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. (1984) 3 SCC 316 , it was held that, ordinarily, if termination of service is held to be bad, denial of back wages would amount to awarding punishment for no reason and would, therefore, be impermissible; consequently, the workman or employee, in such a case, would be entitled to full back wages. The ordinary rule of award of full back wages, where termination of an employee is found to be illegal, also stands expressed, by the Supreme Court, in K.C. Joshi vs. Union of India and Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 153 , wherein it has been held that where an order of termination is found to be illegal, it must be followed by a declaration that the employee continues to be in uninterrupted service, while in Pyare Lal Sharma vs. Managing Director AIR 1989 SC 1854 it has been held that when the termination order is set aside by courts, normally the servant becomes entitled to back wages and other consequential benefits. However, if, during the period of inability to serve the employer, the employee or workman has obtained other gainful employment, the back wages awarded to him would stand reduced by the salary or wages drawn by him consequent on such gainful by employment as has been held in Om Prakash Goel v. H.P. Tourism Development Corpn. Ltd., (1991) 3 SCC 291 . Ibrahim Shahabuddin Shaikh vs. Sangli Distt. Central Cooperation Bank JT 1991 (5) SC 189 also reiterates that, in the absence of a finding that the employee was not gainfully employed, during the period consequent to his
