( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 115 OF 1993 M/s Kinetic Engineering Ltd., Daund Road, Ahmednagar, through its General Manager. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Raghunath s/o Deoram Sonawane, at/post Kedgaon Devi, Tal. & District Ahmednagar. 2. The Hon’ble Judge and Presiding Officer, Second Labour Court, Savedi Road, Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate holding for Mr. B.B. Yenge, advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 18th June, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner (employer) seeks to challenge judgement and order rendered by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Ahmednagar, in Reference (IDA) No. 11/1987. ( 2 ) 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out rival pleadings of the parties. Suffice it to say that the petition is now restricted to the relief of backwages in as much as the respondent is allowed to join the duties and he is continued to remain in service of the petitioner in view of the interim order dated 14th January, 1993 passed by this Court. There is no need to disturb the status quo position and there is no demand for removal of the respondent from service by setting aside the impugned judgement and order whereby he was directed to be reinstated w.e.f. 17-12-1983 with continuity of service and full backwages. The petitioner, however, has raised serious dispute regarding payment of backwages to the respondent. 3. Heard learned counsel Mr. Bedre for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent No. 1. 4. The impugned judgement and order purports to show that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court did not ascribe specific reasons for granting full backwages to the respondent No.1. It is well settled that backwages can be granted only when the employee has proved that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period of his illegal ( 3 ) termination and the date of reinstatement directed by the Court. The respondent No. 1 did not explain as to how the claim for backwages was justified. He stated that during the period of strike, he was not paid any remuneration, nor he had claimed the wages from the petitioner by filing any application. He clearly admitted that he was not on cross terms with the officers of the petitioner. He further admitted that he was not having any documentary evidence to show that he had submitted applications/representations to the petitioner for his appointment in pursuance to the subsequent advertisement. The respondent No. 1 failed to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period. Obviously, the backwages could not have been granted just for asking. As stated before, the respondent No. 1 is absent and, therefore, there is no proper explanation even today as regards absence of evidence regarding his non-employment during the period prior to the reinstatement. The petitioner, in fact, paid 50 per cent of the backwages as directed by this Court and Mr. Bedre makes a statement about such payment on instructions. 5. Considering the foregoing reasons, it will have to be said that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to claim ( 4 ) backwages only to the extent of 50 per cent which are already paid and rest of the claim is unsustainable. Hence, the petition is allowed. The direction of the Labour Court to grant backwages to the respondent No. 1 is modified and his claim to the extent of 50 per cent of the backwages is dismissed. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp115-93