1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.351 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3654 OF 2007. (NANURAM MOHANLAL VERMA Vs DIV. CONTROLLER, M.S.R.T.C. AKOLA..) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Appellant in person. Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : K.J.ROHEE & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 28, 2008. 1. Heard the appellant in person and learned Advocate Shri Mehadia for the respondent Corporation. 2. The appellant was in service of the respondent Corporation from 1968. After holding enquiry he was terminated on 28.02.1990. He challenged his termination before the Labour Court by filing complaint on 05.08.1992. After two remands, the Labour Court decided the complaint by order dated 20.11.2003, quashing the termination of the appellant and directing his reinstatement with full back 2 wages. It may be noted that prior to passing of the order by the Labour Court the appellant crossed the age of superannuation on 31.05.2000. As such, there was no question of his reinstatement and the only question was about payment of back wages. The Corporation challenged the order of the Labour Court before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court by order dated 19.12.2006 dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the Labour Court. The Corporation challenged these orders by preferring Writ Petition No.3654 of 2007. The learned single Judge, by order dated 31.10.2007, partly allowed the writ petition in so far as award of full back wages is concerned and directed the appellant to deposit the entire amount of back wages, which he had received, to the tune of Rs.Eight Lacs, within ten weeks from the date of order along with costs of Rs.Five Thousand. The appellant has challenged the said order in the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 3. We have perused all the orders, particularly order of the learned single Judge which is under challenge. It has 3 been pointed out by the learned single Judge that the appellant did not plead in the complaint that he was not gainfully employed. Though, the appellant admitted that he appeared before the various Tribunals, representing employees of the Corporation, he did not adduce any evidence showing that he did not receive any remuneration from those employees. Thus, there was neither pleading nor evidence that the appellant was not gainfully employed, during the period, after his termination. 4. After considering the latest law in this regard the learned single Judge held that the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof by making appropriate pleadings. On the contrary, he suppressed the material pleadings with a view to gain unfair advantage over the petitioner(present respondent). On the background of these findings the learned single Judge partly allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to deposit the amount of back wages which he had received. 4 5. We find that the said order cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. Hence, there is no substance in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 6. At this stage, the appellant seeks eight weeks' time to move the Apex Court against the present order. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation strongly opposed this prayer and suggested that the appellant should be directed to deposit the entire amount in the High Court. 6. However, considering the huge amount, to be refunded by the appellant, we think it expedient to stay the order of refund for the period of eight weeks from today. JUDGE JUDGE RR.