1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5383 OF 2008 Laxman Ramchandra Pandhare ..Petitioner. Vs. The Managing Director, Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. A.A. Gare for the Petitioner. Mrs. Meena Doshi for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 17th November, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Labour Court granted reinstatement though without backwages on an application under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The denial of backwages has been confirmed in an appeal filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of backwages and has instituted these proceedings under Article 226. 2. The Industrial Court has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sanghtana v. S.C. Sharma1 1 2005(104) FLR 863, SC. 2 in which it was observed that when a claim of backwages consequent upon termination is made, the employee has to establish that he was not gainfully employed. It is after the employee has discharged the initial burden that the employer can bring on record material to rebut the claim. In the present case, during the course of the submissions counsel appearing for the Petitioner has upon reading the evidence which was adduced on behalf of the workman fairly admitted that absolutely no evidence was adduced on the question as to whether the workman was or was not gainfully employed after the termination of his services by the Respondent. In 1997, the written statement was amended specifically to set up the defence that the Petitioner was gainfully employed by plying a jeep and was also doing agricultural work. Despite that, absolutely no evidence was adduced on behalf of the Petitioner. The order of the Industrial Court denying backwages consequently does not suffer from any infirmity. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. *****