: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4268 OF 1998 The Deputy Engineer, Zilla Parishad Works Sub-Division, Karad, Tal. Kard, Dist. Satara .. Petitioner V/s. Suresh Ganpati Jadhav & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. M.B. Mehere for the Petitioner. Mr. K.S. Bapat for Respondent No.1 CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 21 ST JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The Writ Petition has been filed against the Award of the Labour Court, Satara, dated 20th September, 1997 in Reference IDA No.3 of 1992. By this Award the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 with continuity of service and full back wages as the Labour Court found that the termination from services of the respondent No.1 was not bonafide. 2. A few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition are as follows : : 2 : 3. The respondent No.1-workman was employed as a ‘Mile Cooly’ with the petitioner-Zilla Parishad. His services were terminated on 30th June, 1990. Being aggrieved by the decision of the petitioner- Zilla Parishad, the respondent No.1 invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and obtained a Reference for adjudication of his dispute. The Reference was registered as Reference (IDA) No.5 of 1992 before the Labour Court, Sangli. A statement of claim was filed by the respondent No.1 indicating how his services have been illegally terminated although he had completed 240 days of service in the previous year and even earlier. He pleaded, therefore, that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act had been breached. The respondent No.1-workman has pleaded in the statement of claim that he and his family were surviving on the charity of others as he had no source of income. In the written statement filed by the respondent No.1 to the Writ Petition, there is no specific denial of the statements made by the respondent No.1 on the issue of gainful employment, nor is there any positive : 3 : pleading that the respondent No.1-workman was in fact gainfully employed after his services were terminated in 1990. Evidence was led by the parties before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has observed that both the petitioner-Zilla Parishad as well as the respondent No.1 led evidence. However, the Labour Court was not satisfied with the evidence led by the petitioner-Zilla Parishad and held that the respondent No.1 had completed 240 days in service. On this basis the Labour Court directed the petitioner-Zilla Parishad to reinstate the respondent No.1-workman with continuity of service by observing that the provisions of Sections 25F and G had been breached. 4. Admittedly after the Writ Petition was admitted in 1998, this Court only stayed the order directing payment of back wages. Accordingly, the respondent No.1-workman has been reinstated in service with continuity. 5. The question therefore remains whether the respondent No.1 is entitled to full back wages. The : 4 : Labour Court has observed while considering the issue that the respondent No.1-workman has deposed that he tried approaching the petitioner-Zilla Parishad for getting reinstatement but his efforts proved to be futile. The Labour Court has further observed that the petitioner-Zilla Parishad had not brought on record any material to establish that the respondent No.1 was gainfully employed during the period from his termination from services till the Award was made. On these grounds the Labour Court held that the respondent No.1 was entitled to full back wages. 6. Considering the pleadings and the depositions of the parties before the Labour Court, in my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court with respect to the full back wages. The respondent No.1-workman has discharged his burden by stepping into the witness box and stating that he had not been gainfully employed after he was dismissed from the services. The petitioner-Zilla Parishad on the other hand did not lead any evidence to rebut this evidence. : 5 : Therefore, in my opinion, the finding of the Labour Court must be accepted. 7. Accordingly, the Award of the Labour Court is upheld. Rule discharged. 8. No orders as to costs.