1 3a-wp-7779-08 3IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 7779 OF 2008 Shri.Sukhdeo Bapu Pawar ..Petitioner Vs. President Samajik Sanskrutik Congress Mah. Mumbai and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.A.R.Kapadnis Adv. for Petitioner Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar and Mr.S.G.Kudle Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 22, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. In this petition, the only issue is grant of back wages. The Petitioner was working as a Peon in the School run by Respondent No.1. He came to be terminated on 7th March, 2008. Hence, he filed appeal bearing No.13 of 2008 before the School Tribunal at Solapur. The School Tribunal by order dated 19th September, 2008 set aside the 2 3a-wp-7779-08 order of oral termination dated 7th March, 2008 passed by the Respondent-Management and directed that the Petitioner be reinstated on his original post with 30% back wages and consequential benefits. 3. Being aggrieved by the order granting only 30% back wages, this writ petition has been preferred. 4. The Tribunal granted only 30% back wages on the ground that Petitioner had remained present in the School and had not done any actual work of his posting in the School. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the opinion that 30% back wages would be reasonable in the facts of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in fact, the Petitioner was working in the School during the period and hence, he ought to have been granted 100% back wages. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner had not examined any witness in support of his contention that during the said period he had actually worked on his post. In support of the contention that the petitioner was working from date of termination till the date he was reinstated i.e. from 7th March, 2008 to 19th September, 2009, therefore, he ought to have been granted full 100% back wages, he has placed reliance on an affidavit of some employees in the school. However, on perusal of the affidavit, it is seen that it is dated 16th March, 2008 i.e. just few days after the termination. This clearly does not cover the period for which the 3 3a-wp-7779-08 Petitioner is seeking back wages. Hence, this affidavit be of no assistance to the Petitioner in any manner. Thus, it is seen that there is no cogent and reliable material on record to show that in fact, the Petitioner had worked during the said period. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal granted 30% back wages. The said order of grant of back wages does not, in the circumstances, warrant any interference by this Court. There is no merit in the petition. Petition stands accordingly dismissed. 7. It would not be out of place to mention here that in fact, the Management had also challenged the order of reinstatement and back wages granted to the Petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.7191 of 2008. This writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court by order dated 14th November, 2008. The said order has not been challenged. 8. In view of the above, petition stands dismissed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]