ORDER J. S. Verma, J.- 1. The petitioner was employed as a mechanic in the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation. His service was terminated on 18-8-1975. The petitioner then filed an application under section 31 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act to the Labour Court challenging his dismissal. The Labour Court, by its order Annexure-B dated 30-3-1977 held that the termination of petitioner's service was illegal and accordingly a direction was made to reinstate him with full back wages. 2. The M. P. State Road Transport Corporation then filed a revision in the Industrial Court. By its order Annexure-C dated 17-10-1977, the Industrial Court partly allowed that revision. The Labour Court's finding that the termination of service was illegal was affirmed. However, it was held that even though the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated in service, yet he was not entitled to be paid any back wages because the petitioner had not led any evidence to show that be ever attempted to get an alternative employment. On this basis the relief of back wages in addition to reinstatement granted by the Labour Court was taken away by the Industrial Court. This has led to this petition by the petitioner for quashing that part of the Industrial Court's order by which the relief of back wages has been refused. 3. There is no dispute that in the present case there is no evidence led by either side on the question of any possible alternative employment available to the petitioner after termination of his service for deciding the question whether he was entitled to get full back wages or not. This question will, therefore, have to be answered On the basis of burden of proof. The party on whom the burden lay to plead and prove this fact must. therefore, fail on account of want of any evidence either way. On review or the earlior authorities on this point, a Division Bench of this Court in Singeshwar Prasad v. The General Manager. Bhilai Steel Plant and two others, M.P. No. 23 of 1976, decided on 17-1-1978 pointed out that the normal rule is to award full back wages to the employee when the order of his dismissal from service is sot aside as illegal and that it is for the employer to plead and prove circumstances which may disentitle the employee to the benefit of full back wages. It was held that the onus lies on the employer to plead and prove circumstances justifying any deduction from the full back wages and if that is not done, then the normal rule of awarding full back wages, while granting reinstatement to the employee on the termination of his service being held to be illegal and unjustified, must be applied. It wall further held therein that where there is no evidence and the question bas to be decided on the basis of onus, the employer must fail and no deduction from the full back wages can be made. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in G.T. Lad and others v. Chemicals and Elhres India Ltd., AIR 1979 SC 532 the same view has been taken. Their Lordships while dealing with this question laid down the law as under :- "A point which requires to be clarified and has been brought to the notice of the Court after the judgment was delivered relates to back wages from 19-9-72 to date of reinstatement. The rule in such cases is that where reinstatement has been directed by the Court, the entire back wages must follow as matter of course. Of course there is a discretion in the Court having regard to special circumstances if any to modify this normal rule." It cannot, therefore, now be doubted after the Supreme Court decision that on reinstatement of the employee, the entire back wages must follow as a matter of course as a normal rule. Where nothing has been brought on record to indicate that there are any special circumstances requiring the Court in its discretion to modify this normal rule, it is obvious that the normal rule of awarding the entire back wages must be followed. It need hardly be added that it is the duty of the employer wanting any deduction to be made in this amount to bring on record the special circumstances, if any which can justify any deduction in that amount and unless any such special circumstances are shown no occasion arises for the Court to exercise its discretion of departing from the normal rule and making any deduction in that amount required to be paid to the employee in accordance with the normal rule. Thus, unless the employer pleads and proves any such special circumstances to justify making any deduction from the amount the entire back wages have to be awarded to the employee as a matter of course. 4. It is, therefore obvious that the Industrial Court committed an apparent error in placing the onus on the petitioner to prove that he had unsuccessfully attempted to get some alternative employment. The decision reached by the Industrial Court on the basis that the petitioner had failled to discharge this burden is, therefore, patently erroneous and must be set aside. 5. Consequently, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The Industrial Court's order Annexure-C to the extent it disallows back wages to the petitioner is quashed and the direction given by the Labour Court in its order Annexure-B for payment of the entire back wages is restored. The petitioner shall get his costs from respondent No.1. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/- if certified.