36/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION L.P.A.NO.36/2011 M/s Rajshree Abrasives Petitioner Vs. Gajanan Kisan Koli Respondent Mr.Jaiprakash Sawant for appellant Mr.D.S.Joshi for Respondent Coram-P.B.Majmudar, And Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,JJ. Date- 15th July,2011. P.C. . This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23/11/2010 in W.P.No. 8552/2010. By impugned order the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the present appellant -employer. The appellant challenged the order passed by the Labour Court by which the Labour Court passed order of reinstatement in favour of the respondent with continuity of service and full back wages. It has been found by the learned Single Judge that the Labour Court has recorded finding of 36/2011 2 fact to the effect that the employer has incorrectly taken a stand that the workman has resigned voluntarily and settled his dues. 2 At this stage it is required to be considered that on behalf of the employer in cross examination it is clearly admitted that the workman has not tendered resignation letter to the first party. The said evidence is finding place at page-80. We have gone through that part of cross examination. The employer has tried to create false stand by raising false plea of resignation. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is willing to pay 50% back wages. The respondent is not agree with this. The litigant who takes false stand before the Court of Law cannot ask for any equitable relief. Though payment of back wages is not an equitable relief there is no evidence on record by which it can be said that the respondent is gainfully employed in service during the intervening 36/2011 3 period. Even in the cross examination it is clearly admitted by the appellant that there is no evidence to show that he is gainfully employed. He has admitted that he has no document to show that the workman is gainfully employed. It is submitted that the concerned employee has already reached the age of superannuation. 4 Considering these facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The L.P.A. is dismissed. (P.B.Majmudar,J.) (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)