:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 411 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3364 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 3364 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 3364 OF 2004 H. M. Mahamunkar ..Appellant versus The Regional Director, National Aviation Co. (I) Ltd. (Air India) ..Respondents Mr. Neel G. Helekar for the Appellant. Mr. R. S. Pai i/b. M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an appeal against the Order of the learned Single Judge upholding the Award of the learned Presiding Officer, CGIT dated 23.9.2003. In effect the learned Single Judge has upheld the Award of the CGIT directing reinstatement of the appellant in the services of Indian Airlines with continuity in service, however, without back wages. :2: 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Award of the CGIT denying back wages and the Order of the learned Single Judge upholding denial of back wages is improper and does not take into account the fact that the appellant was not gainfully employed. 4. We have perused the record and we find that it is not that the appellant was not gainfully employed. In paragraph 7, learned Presiding Officer, CGIT, has referred to cross-examination of the appellant where he admitted that he earns Rs.1,500/- per month. On that basis, it was found that the appellant is gainfully employed. It is not necessary that the dismissed employee must be shown to have earned last drawn wages in order to treat him as gainfully employed. We do not find any illegality in the Order of the learned Single Judge. 5. It appears from the record that the appellant along with other employees was found guilty of pilfering three wrist watches and Rs.85,000/- from the registered baggages of passengers travelling on an Indian Airlines flight. One wrist watch and the money appears to have been :3: recovered from the residence of the appellant. 6. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere. LPA is dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.)