ORDER V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the award made by the Labour Court, U. P., at Agra in Adjudication Case 76 of 1971 by which it held that the termination of the services of the concerned workman was illegal. Under the award, the workman concerned was granted relief of reinstatement with effect from December 16, 1968 the date of his removal from service. The award was made on Aug. 30, 1977. 2. In para 8 of the award it was observed by the Labour Court that, inasmuch as, the workman had failed to establish that he had remained unemployed since after the date aforesaid or that he was not able to earn the same amount of wages which he was earning while in the employment of the third respondent (M/s. Jain Glass Works Pvt. Ltd.), he was not entitled to the award of back wages till the date of his reinstatement. More so, because the workman concerned had failed to establish that he had made efforts to mitigate the pecuniary loss during the period of his forced unemployment. The court, therefore, directed that the workman concerned should be reinstated, with continuity of service but paid back wages only for the period between the date of the award and the date of his reinstatement by the employer. Hence, the present petition on behalf of the workman. 3. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that the Labour Court was in error in taking the view that the workman was not entitled to back wages for the period between the date of his that of the award for his failure to prove that he was not in employment or was not able to earn any wages during that period. It is urged that the burden to aver and establish that the workman had done so was on the employers. The stand, on the contrary, on behalf of the employer in this respect is that unless it was pleaded on behalf of the workman that he had remained unemployed or was not able to earn any wages during that period, it was not for the employer to allege or prove anything in that regard. Counsel for the parties have placed reliance on some decided cases in support of their submission. 4. Counsel for the parties have placed reliance on some decided cases in support of their submission. 4. In Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. ( AIR 1979 SC 75 ): (1978 Lab I C 1667); the Supreme Court said that it was settled law that where an order of termination is found by the Labour Court to be invalid, the normal rule was to grant reinstatement for it was possible in the field of industrial jurisprudence to grant a declaration that the termination of service was bad and the workman continued to be in the service. It said that ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated, would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. The party objecting to the normal rule must establish the circumstances necessitating departure from the normal rule. To quote the words of the Supreme Court (in para 9) : "It is no more open to debate that in the field of industrial jurisprudence a declaration can be given that the termination of service is bad and the workman continues to be in service............. The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service can be granted where termination of service is found to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has taken away illegally the right to work of the workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract and simultaneously deprived the workman of his earnings Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule.............. When it was held that the termination of service was neither proper nor justified, it would not only show that the workmen were always willing to serve but if they rendered service they would legitimately be entitled to the wages for the same. If the workmen were always ready to work but they were kept away therefrom on account of invalid act of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding them full back wages which were very legitimately due to them. If the workmen were always ready to work but they were kept away therefrom on account of invalid act of the employer, there is no justification for not awarding them full back wages which were very legitimately due to them. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Dhari Gram Panchayat v. Safai Kamdar Mandal (1971) 1 Lab L J 508 and a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Postal Seals Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Labour Court, Lucknow (1971) 1 Lab L J 327 have taken this view and we are of the opinion that the view taken therein is correct." And then in paras 11 and 12 that: "In the very nature of things there cannot be a strait-jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant consideration will enter the verdict. Moreso less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure........... If the normal rule in a case like this is to award full back wages, the burden will be on the appellant employer to establish circumstances which would permit a departure from the normal rule " 5. These observations clearly indicate that the burden of pleading and establishment that the workman was gainfully employed during the period of his enforced idleness is upon the employer. That is the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The tribunal was clearly in error in taking the view that it was for the workman to establish that he had remained unemployed or that he was not able to earn the same amount of wages which he was earning while in employment of the third respondent subsequent to the termination of his service. Its award, in so far as it relates to the question of payment of back wages to Babu Ram cannot be sustained. 6. Counsel for the third respondent contended that the writ petition was not maintainable for it had not been instituted properly. Babu Ram himself was not a petitioner. The Union (Jain Glass Works Mechanical Workers Union) which was shown as representing the workman and as one of the petitioners had not filed the petition and only its name has been used in the array of the parties. Babu Ram himself was not a petitioner. The Union (Jain Glass Works Mechanical Workers Union) which was shown as representing the workman and as one of the petitioners had not filed the petition and only its name has been used in the array of the parties. There was no resolution of the said Union to file the petition. Bhagwan Das Sathi had filed the writ petition and signed the vakalatnama as President of Glass Works Mazdoor Sangh which was not a party either to the reference nor did it draw its membership from the establishment of the third respondent. The sangh is not a party to the petition. Bhagwan Das Sathi was not a office-bearer of Jain Glass Works Mechanical Workers Union and had, therefore, no locus standi to file the petition on its behalf. These facts, stated in paras 19 to 21 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, have been met by the petitioners in paras 12, 13 and 14 of the rejoinder affidavit wherein it has been averred that Bhagwan Das Sathi had signed the vakalatnama in his capacity as the President of Glass Works Mazdoor Sangh on being authorised to do so because the workers of the third respondent were members of the Sangh as well. Further that Bhagwan Das Sathi had represented the workman before the Labour Court. Also, that the Jain Glass Works Mechanical Workers Union was a party to the dispute before the Labour Court and was, consequently, competent to institute the present petition. On these assertions, it is clear that no objection can justifiably be taken to the maintainability of the writ petition. 7. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of U. P. (1978 All LJ 724), it was observed by a Division Bench that "it is true that as a rule, certiorari does not issue at the instance of one not named as a party to the proceeding in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed was entered. 7. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of U. P. (1978 All LJ 724), it was observed by a Division Bench that "it is true that as a rule, certiorari does not issue at the instance of one not named as a party to the proceeding in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed was entered. But where a person not a party to the proceedings, shows that the decision sought to be reviewed is directed against him or his property in the sense that the enforcement of the decision would involve special, immediate and in its effect a direct injury to his interest, the rule will issue." The Jain Glass Works Mechanical Workers Union was a party to the dispute before the Labour Court; it was represented before the Labour Court through Bhagwan Das Sathi, it could agitate the grievance of one of its members (Babu Ram) through him in the present writ petition. 8. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court, U. P., Agra in Adjudication Case No. 76 of 1971 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) is quashed in so far as it relates to nonpayment of full back wages to the concerned workman. The matter shall be gone into again by the Labour Court The petitioners shall be entitle to their costs.