JUDGMENT : S.M. Daud, J. 1. These petitions arise out of a reference made under Sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'. 2. The workman hereinafter to be referred to as 'Thakur' was in the employment of the Vegetable Vitamin Foods Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Company) as a Motor Driver since about the year 1968. The recognised or representative Union of the workers in the year 1977 was the Maharashtra Mazdoor Congress. This Union was agitating for an improvement in the conditions regulating the working of the labour employed in the Company. On the 6th and 7th of May 1977, some incidents took place inside and outside the Company's factory premises. Pursuant to the happenings, Thakur was served with two charge-sheets dated 7th and 10th May 1977. The first charge-sheet accused him of obstructing a vehicle of the Company from entering the said Company's factory premises at about 7.15 p.m. on 6 May 1977 and thereby violating an injunction granted by the Industrial Court. The next charge-sheet which related to a happening on 7 May 1977, alleged that Thakur instigated and encouraged his co-workers to gherao the office staff, Supervisors, Executives and Directors of the Company from about 4.30 p.m. As a result of his instigation, the co-workers were said to have indulged in the utterance of abusive and defamatory slogans, and this created a situation which endangered the peace and security of the area. Thakur denied having done anything of the nature attributed to him. His contention' was that the MMC had been peacefully ventilating the grievances of the workers, that it was gaining a foothold in the Company, and, that this was not to the liking of the employer, for which reason it had decided to victimise all the followers of the said Congress. To get rid of such followers who included himself, false charges had been levelled at the workers. The Company after carrying out what it conceived to be a departmental enquiry, served Thakur with an order dismissing him from service. An industrial dispute having arisen the matter was referred to the Labour Court. That Court held that the Company had not established the holding of a proper enquiry before dismissing Thakur from its service. Parties were called upon to lead evidence in support of their versions as to the misconduct allegedly committed by the workman. An industrial dispute having arisen the matter was referred to the Labour Court. That Court held that the Company had not established the holding of a proper enquiry before dismissing Thakur from its service. Parties were called upon to lead evidence in support of their versions as to the misconduct allegedly committed by the workman. In support of its version the company examined a certain number of witnesses, while Thakur examined himself. The Labour Court held that Thakur could not be penalised for the alleged violation of the order passed by the Industrial Court inasmuch as he was not a party to the proceedings before that Court. In so far as the happenings of 7 May 1977 were concerned, the learned Judge of that Court was of the view that there was no evidence worth the name to connect the workman with the lawless activities ascribed unto him. The Court directed the workman continuity of service with 50% back-wages, the monthly wage to be reckoned at Rs. 650/-per mensum. Aggrieved by the direction for continuity and 50% of the monthly wage, the Company had moved Writ Petition No. 1695 of 1986. Deprived of the remaining 50% of the back- wages, Thakur has come up with Writ Petition No. 3138 of 1986. The first petition is to be dismissed and the second one allowed. I do so for the reasons given below: 3. Mr. John for the Company submits that overwhelming evidence led by his client to substantiate the charges levelled against the workman had been overlooked by the Labour Court on the basis of anything more substantial than generalisation. I cannot agree. The evidence led by the Company lay in depositions of certain witnesses. Its witness C.K. Nair admittedly did not witness the occurrences which took place on 6th and 7th of May 1977. Time-keeper Sawant spoke of the incident which took place on 7 May 1977. He says that workmen were obstructing the entry of tankers and that their names were noted down by him vide Exh.C-13. He does not say that Thakur was the leader of the mob which indulged in obstructing the tankers and shouting abusive slogans. If Sawant is to be believed, Thakur was uttering slogans and obstructing tankers along with several others. This is at variance with the charge-sheet dated 10 May 1977 which depicts Thakur as the ring-leader of the mob. He does not say that Thakur was the leader of the mob which indulged in obstructing the tankers and shouting abusive slogans. If Sawant is to be believed, Thakur was uttering slogans and obstructing tankers along with several others. This is at variance with the charge-sheet dated 10 May 1977 which depicts Thakur as the ring-leader of the mob. The Labour Court has disbelieved Sawant because of his obvious partiality for the Company and also because of some ambiguity in some answers given by him. The ambiguous answer is to be found in his admission that he could not recall Thakur being told to go home when he returned for duty on 7 May 1977. Now it is difficult to believe that a workman who was obstructing loyal workmen and who had played so leading a part as is set out in the charge-sheet would not be remembered if after all this he returned and reported for duty on the same day. Director Joshi also does not speak of Thakur leading the lawless and noisy workers on the 7th. CW 4 Henriques says that while at the factory he was told at about 5.00 p.m. that he was wanted at the Weigh-bridge. When there, he noticed workers obstructing some Saheb from entering the factory. Therefore, he returned to the factory and had to stay there because a crowd of workers had assembled outside and was shouting filthy abuses. The inmates so imprisoned could get out only after the police came on the scene and took away some of the workers. Those picked up by the Police numbered as many as 200 to 250 and quite a number of the mob fled. Though naming Thakur as being present outside the factory, witness does not say that Thakur was engaged in shouting slogans or uttering abuses. As was to be expected, Thakur himself pleads that he did not indulge in any lawlessness. But the burden to establish misconduct lay upon the Company. It has not tried to bring on record the report made to the Police and/or statements recorded during the investigation carried out. Not a single policeman has been examined to establish the presence of Thakur amongst the rioters assembled, whether inside or outside the factory gate. The more boisterous of the workers were apprehended by the Police. It has not tried to bring on record the report made to the Police and/or statements recorded during the investigation carried out. Not a single policeman has been examined to establish the presence of Thakur amongst the rioters assembled, whether inside or outside the factory gate. The more boisterous of the workers were apprehended by the Police. If the charge-sheet of 10-May 1977 is to be believed, Thakur should have been the most obvious target of the Policeman for apprehension. Yet he was not arrested and it cannot be believed that he somehow managed to slip and escape apprehension by the Police. A possible view of the evidence has been taken by the Labour Court to hold that the charge against Thakur had not been established. It cannot be said that this was against the weight of the evidence as is contended by Mr. John. After all, when the charge against the workman, if established, would deprive him of his livelihood, the evidence has to answer a more stringest test. It should be more decisive than that normally expected in civil cases. In expressing itself, the Labour Court may have used some words and sentences not entirely appropriate to the occasion. It is however the conclusion reached by that Court which has to be seen. That conclusion is compatible with the probabilities and therefore the finding that the misconduct had not been established, will have to be accepted. 4. This brings me to the workman's petition complaining against the non-granting of the full back-wages to him, I have not been able to discern any reason in the judgment given by the Labour Court for allowing Thakur only 50% of the back-wages. The normal relief in cases of reinstatement is full back-wages. Here, Thakur has been denied reinstatement because of his advanced age. The employer has been directed to treat him as being in service upto 27 March 1986 when the Labour Court proclaimed its award. There is no reason why upto that date, : Thakur should not get the full wages. It was argued that Thakur was 75/76 years of age when the award was passed and under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, no workman was entitled to continue in service after attaining the age of 58 years. This is not a correct reading of the aforementioned Act. It was argued that Thakur was 75/76 years of age when the award was passed and under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, no workman was entitled to continue in service after attaining the age of 58 years. This is not a correct reading of the aforementioned Act. Section 2(r) of the Act merely lays down the rule of superannuation in relation to employees. The age of retirement according to this rule depends upon the contract or condition of service ana in the absence of these two, the age of 58 years. Here, the contract and conditions, of service did not preclude the continuation of employment beyond the age of 58. In fact, Thakur seems to have been employed after he attained the age of 58 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was liable to be retired after he attained the age of 58. No reason having been shown for depriving Thakur of his entitlement to full back-wages the order of the Labour Court to that extent is bad in law. Hence the order: Writ Petition No. 1698 of 1986 is dismissed. Writ Petition No. 3138 of 1986 is allowed. The operative part of award passed by the Labour Court is substituted to read thus: "The workman is awarded continuity of service till 27 March 1986 with full back-wages, his monthly wages being reckoned at Rs. 650/-. The Company to pay the said amount of back-wages to the workman. The employer to pay cost of Rs. 200/- to the workman and bear its own". Rule in W.P.No. 1694 of 1986 discharged and the rule in W.P.No. 3138 of 1986 is made absolute with there being no order for costs. Operation of the above order is stayed for a period of 8 weeks from today to enable the employer to move a higher Court against this judgment.