1 LPA No.240.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5565 OF 1996 Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT. VERSUS M.M.Khan, Adult Ex-Conductor, MSRTC, Aub’d Division, Aub’d C/o G.R.Khan 2-8-84, S.T.Colony, Fajilpura,Aub’d. ...RESPONDENT. ... Smt. Ranjanna D.Reddy, Advocate for Appellant. Shri.A.D.Sugdare,Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 25TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Smt. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 2 LPA No.240.2010 appellant submits that the respondent failed to establish before the Trial Court that he was not gainfully employed during the period of his absence from service, therefore, the learned Single Judge committed error in modifying the order of the Labour Court and granted 50% of the back wages for the period between dismissal of the petitioner till his reinstatement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for appellant submits that even in absence of evidence led by the respondent in respect of the fact that the respondent was not gainfully employed, the Court in the facts of the case is entitled to award back wages when order of dismissal was being set aside. 4. Mr.Sugdare,learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the appellant-MSRTC has preferred not to challenge the order passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service. 3 LPA No.240.2010 5. We have perused the judgment and order delivered by the Labour Court and the judgment and order delivered by Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 5565 of 1996. We find that the learned Single Judge gave sound reasons in dealing with the facts of the case and reached proper conclusions in awarding 50% of the back wages to the respondent. The learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on the judgment in the case Hindustan Motors Ltd Vs. Tapan Kumar Bhattachrya and another in Appeal(Civil) 3984 of 2002 dated 12.07.2002. 6. We have perused judgment cited supra. We do not find any error or apparent mistake in the order passed by the learned Single Judge for entertaining this Letters Patent Appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. 7. Smt.Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 11th March, 2010 be stayed for a period of six weeks. We do not find any 4 LPA No.240.2010 justifiable reason to accept the request made by the counsel. The same is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK