1 wp 4718.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4718 OF 2011 Dr. Bapurao S/o Dhondu Desai, Age : 57 Years, Occu. : Nil, R/o 1, Zilla Parishad Colony, Near Shiv College Stop, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus 1. North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, Through Vice Chancellor. 2. North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon, Through its Registrar. .. Respondents Shri A. G. Talhar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Vivek Dhage, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the University 2 wp 4718.11 Tribunal, Aurangabad against the order terminating him from the services. The learned Presiding Officer, University Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashed the order of termination, but has further ordered that the appellant/present petitioner is not entitled for backwages. Against the non award of backwages the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Shri Talhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that enquiry itself is vitiated. So the termination order was quashed and set aside. In such circumstances, backwages should have been awarded. The learned counsel further contends that in the body of the judgment the learned Presiding Officer has no where discussed about entitlement or non entitlement of the petitioner regarding backwages. It is only in the operative part of the order, the learned Presiding Officer has held that the appellant is not entitled for the backwages. No reasons are given for the same. The learned counsel submits that to the extent of backwages the order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal the petitioner is reinstated in the service. 4. Shri Dhage, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 wp 4718.11 2 submits that the Tribunal has rightly not awarded the backwages on the principle of no pay for no work. Simply because there is no discussion about the backwages in the body of the judgment same would not vitiate the judgment. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have perused the judgment delivered by the learned Presiding Officer, University Tribunal, Aurangabad. The learned Presiding Officer has come to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner is vitiated. It has also come to the conclusion that the evidence recorded in the departmental enquiry does not support the order of dismissal of present petitioner. In the operative part though the order of termination is quashed and set aside, the learned Presiding Officer has further directed that the appellant is not entitled for the backwages in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of India, but has nowhere discussed about the said judgment of the Apex Court in the body of the judgment and as to how the same is applicable in the present matter. In the whole body of the judgment it nowhere transpires that the learned Presiding Officer has discussed about the entitlement or non entitlement of backwages to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the order to the extent of 4 wp 4718.11 backwages deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. The learned Presiding Officer, University Tribunal, Aurangabad shall decide about the entitlement of the petitioner to backwages afresh. The matter is remanded to that extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Nov. 11