( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2684 OF 1990 The Estate Manager, Maharashtra State Farming Corporation, Gangapur Farm, Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Gangapur Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Union, Gangapur, through its Secretary Shri Kundlik s/o Bhikaji Alawane, R/o Gangapur Farm, MSFC, Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Karbhari Kashinath Nagude, R/o Raghunathnagar, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.N. Dhorde, advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent No. 1. Mr. S.V. Natu, advocate for respondent No. 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th January, 2010] ( 2 ) ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. This petition filed by the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation is against judgement rendered by learned Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad in a complaint case bearing No. 267/1985. 2. Briefly stated, it was case of the respondent No. 2 that he was employed as a tractor driver on Establishment of the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation. He was subjected to unfair labour practices and was illegally removed from service. He, therefore, sought reinstatement and recovery of backwages. The Industrial Court allowed his complaint application under provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, “MRTU & PULP Act”). 3. The issue which survives consideration is only in respect of direction to pay backwages to the ( 3 ) respondent No. 2. For, admittedly, he was reinstated on 9th October, 1990 and has resigned the post on 08-08-1992. He is no more in service of the Corporation. He was dismissed on 10-05-1985. Obviously, the question is whether he was entitled to claim backwages for period between 10-05-1985 till 09-10-1990. 4. Heard learned counsel. 5. The impugned judgement does not show as to why the backwages have been awarded by the Industrial Court. No reasons are ascribed. The material on record does not show that the respondent No. 2 was unable to get any gainful employment during the relevant period. It appears that he was dismissed from service after inquiry because it was noticed that he had misappropriated the diesel. The inquiry was, however, found to be unfair and illegal because the Enquiry Officer acted over enthusiastically and had cross-examined the witnesses. In other words, the Enquiry Officer was found to be interested and biased. Thus, the reinstated was ordered ( 4 ) on technical grounds due to deficiencies found in the procedure of inquiry. 6. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 would submit that certain amount of backwages would be acceptable. He would, however, submit that remand of the matter is not likely to be helpful to either party. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent No. 2 towards backwages and rest of the claim may be denied in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case. For, the respondent No. 2 voluntarily left the services of the Corporation and there is no adequate proof about his having been unable to gain any income during the relevant period. 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The respondent No. 2 will be entitled to receive only an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner – Corporation towards backwages for the relevant period and any claim over and above the said amount be deemed as dismissed. ( 5 ) The said amount shall be paid to the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner within period of four months. If not paid within the stipulated period, the amount will carry interest at rate of 6 per cent per annum. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp2684-90