1 wp3286.92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3286 OF 1992 Raghunath s/o Changdeo Pawar, Age: Major, Occ: Retired Driver, R/o. C/o. Shaikh Shakir Sk. Ismile, Near Shivaji Statute, and Old Hospital, Beed, At Post Taluka & Dist.Beed. ..PETITIONER VERSUS The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, S.T. Division Office, Beed, At Post Taluka & DIst.Beed. ..RESPONDENT ... Mr. Parag Shahane, Advocate holding for Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for respondent sole. ... CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : 5TH MAY, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : By way of this petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06-06-1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad in Reference I.D.A. No. 25 of 2 wp3286.92 1985, by which the Labour Judge allowed the Reference of the present petitioner - workman and the respondent was directed to reinstate the present petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages with effect from 31-05-1979. 2. The petitioner-workman has challenged the said order by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on the ground that he should have been granted full back wages and not 50% back wages. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that once the order of termination is found to be illegal, natural consequences of the same would be to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages. He submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in granting only 50% back wages to the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. I have gone through the 3 wp3286.92 judgment of the Labour Court and other documents annexed with the petition. 5. The Labour Court has given cogent reasons so far as the order of reinstatement of the petitioner is concerned. However, so far as the payment of back wages is concerned, it cannot be said that in every case, the Labour Court is required to grant 100% back wages moment the order of termination is set aside. The Labour Court has found that the petitioner was in habit of committing misconduct of serious nature and in the past, he was dismissed twice. It is found that this is not the case wherein full back wages can be given to him, as he has committed some serious misconduct, which may disentitle him to get full back wages. There is nothing on record to show that for the entire period i.e. from the order of termination till the petitioner is reinstated in service, he had no income. It is not the case of the petitioner that all throughout he remained unemployed for such a long time. 4 wp3286.92 Reference of the year 1985 was decided in 1991. The Labour Court has given cogent reasons in Para-3 of the Award for not granting 100% back wages especially after considering past service record of the petitioner. In any case, it is not the mandate of law that in every case moment the order of reinstatement is passed the Labour Court should have award 100% back wages. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspect, it is not the case in which this Court would like to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court in so far it has granted 50% back wages and not full back wages for intervening period. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. [ P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] sut/May11