1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 536/10 IN W.P. NO. 934/2001. Harikesh Ramnarayan Tiwari .vs. Municipal Council, Ballarpur & another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.G. Issac, Advocate for appellant, Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2010. The only point urged in this appeal is that the learned Single Judge ought not to have reduced the back wages from 100% to 50% as awarded by the Labour Court. 2] We find from the judgment in appeal that the learned Single Judge has reduced the quantum of back wages to the appellant because the appellant has nowhere pleaded and proved that he was not gainfully employed after his termination. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court in Allahabad Jal Sanstha vs. Daya 2 Shankar Rai & another reported in (2005) 5 SCC 124, Metropolitan Transport Corporation .vs. Venkatesan reported in 2009(6) ALL M R 443 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Chandrapur .vs. Ramabai Vijay Shende & another reported in (2009) 1 Mh.L.J. 576, we find that the judgment in appeal is not liable to be interfered with. There is no merit in the contention that because the appellant had claimed full back wages and had also made a statement to that effect in the evidence, it tantamounts to making a statement that the appellant was not gainfully employed. 3] There is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed. Judge Judge J.