1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 168/2011 IN W.P. NO. 557/2010 (D) (The State of Mah. & others VERSUS Hiralal Hari Bondre) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for the appellant. Shri F.G. Isaac, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : JUNE 16 , 2011 . Heard. The appellants had filed Writ Petition No.557 of 2010 challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court upholding the order passed by the Labour Court and granting reinstatement to the respondent in service with 100% back wages from the date of termination till December-1994. The learned Single Judge of this Court found that the evidence on record was duly considered by the Labour and the Industrial Court to grant reinstatement to the respondent. Since the findings recorded by both the Courts were pure findings of facts, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the findings. The learned Single Judge, however, held that the burden to show the absence of gainful employment was on the respondent and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent was not entitled to grant of 100% back wages from the date of termination till December-1994 and was entitled to only 50% back wages for the aforestated period. 2 The learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants so far as it challenged the order of the Labour and the Industrial Court on the issue of reinstatement as the findings of both the Courts were based on facts and were just and reasonable. In fact, the learned Single Judge had partly allowed the writ petition filed by the State and granted the benefit of only 50% back wages to the respondent. There is no merit whatsoever in the letters patent appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE