JUDGMENT - Dr. B.P. SARAF, J.:-This writ petition has been filed by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (hereinafter referred to as "the Union") representing 12 workmen whose services as watchmen were terminated by the respondent No. 1 Anand Kamal Co-operative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as "the society"). 2. A complaint was filed by the Union before the Labour Court at Bombay alleging unfair labour practice against the society. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Labour Court : (i) Whether the respondent is an industry within the definition of section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act? (ii) Does complainant union prove that respondent is engaged in unfair labour practice under any of the Item 1 of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act? (iii) Whether the workmen whose names are given in Exh. 1 attached to the complaint entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service? (iv) Are they entitled for back wages? (v) What order? 3. The Labour Court after hearing the rival contentions of the parties decided issue No. 1 in the affirmative and held that the society was an industry. The Labour Court also held that the termination of the services of 12 workmen amounted to unfair labour practice. Accordingly issue No. 2 was answered in the affirmative. The Labour Court also held that the workmen were entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. The third issue was therefore also answered in the affirmative. Dealing with the fourth issue which pertained to the entitlement of the workmen to back wages, the Labour Court held that the workmen were not entitled to any back wages as from 14th September, 1986 they had started demonstrations and shouting slogans in filthy language. Issue No. 4 was therefore answered in the negative and against the workmen. In the result the Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the 12 workmen with continuity of service. It also held that they were not entitled to any back wages. Both the workmen and the society filed revision applications before the Industrial Court against the above order of the Labour Court. The Society was aggrieved by the order of reinstatement. The Union was aggrieved by the refusal of the Labour Court to grant back wages. The Industrial Court dismissed both the revision applications and confirmed the order of the Labour Court. The Society was aggrieved by the order of reinstatement. The Union was aggrieved by the refusal of the Labour Court to grant back wages. The Industrial Court dismissed both the revision applications and confirmed the order of the Labour Court. It also held that no show cause notice having been issued to the watchmen and no enquiry having been held, the Labour Court was right in holding that the termination was illegal and it amounted to Unfair Labour Practice. So far as the grievance of the Union in regard to demand of back wages is concerned, the Industrial Court observed that though the Labour Court had held that participation in the demonstrations and shouting filthy slogans and gherao of the Manager were not sufficient to dismiss all the employees, withholding the back wages was sufficient punishment in its opinion. The Industrial Court refused to interfere with the above findings of the Labour Court. Hence the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Ganguli submits that on the face of the finding that the termination of the workmen by the society, being without any enquiry or charge sheet and even without issuing any letter of termination, was illegal and hence the workmen were entitled to reinstatement, refusal to award back wages was not justified. According to Mr. Ganguli there is nothing on record to show that at any stage the society produced any material to prove any of the charges against any of the workmen. What was done by the society was to make some general allegations against all the workmen of demonstration and shouting slogans, which in any event, cannot justify termination of the services of all the workmen as has rightly been held by both the courts below. According to Mr. Ganguli, on their own finding the courts below should have awarded back wages from the date of termination till date of reinstatement. 5. Learned Counsel for the society supports the order of the courts below denying back wages to the workmen concerned. According to him, the conduct of the workmen deserved such a punishment. According to Mr. Ganguli, on their own finding the courts below should have awarded back wages from the date of termination till date of reinstatement. 5. Learned Counsel for the society supports the order of the courts below denying back wages to the workmen concerned. According to him, the conduct of the workmen deserved such a punishment. He also submits that any direction to pay wages would operate harshly on the society and further submits that even if this Court finds that the workmen concerned are entitled to back wages, the matter should be remanded to the courts below to enable the employer to satisfy it that they were gainfully employed in the meantime and hence even on that count not entitled to back wages. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. I find force in the submission of Mr. Ganguli that on the face of the findings of the courts below that the termination of the 12 workmen without any charge-sheet was illegal there was no justification to withhold payment of back wages for the entire period of illegal termination. Counsel for the society placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court in (The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. P. S. Malvenkar and others)1, 1978 Lab. I. C. 1096 and (Jitendra Singh Rathor v. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd.)2, 1984 Lab. I. C. 554. I have gone through the said decisions. I find that the ratio of these decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. 7. Mr. Ganguli, learned Counsel for the Union, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in (Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. etc. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others)3, 1980 Lab. I.C. 1004 to buttress his contention that full back wages is normal rule and the employer must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. Mr. Ganguli pointed out that the discretion of the courts below in the matter of denial of back wages should be exercised keeping in view all the relevant circumstances which in the instant case has not been done. 8. It appears from the order of the courts below that there was a specific issue regarding the entitlement of the workmen to back wages. No evidence was adduced by the employer to show that all the workmen or any of them were gainfully employed elsewhere. 8. It appears from the order of the courts below that there was a specific issue regarding the entitlement of the workmen to back wages. No evidence was adduced by the employer to show that all the workmen or any of them were gainfully employed elsewhere. The period between the date of termination and reinstatement was 26 months. The salary of the workmen ranges from 325/- to 375/- per month. The termination was in the year 1986. More than seven years have elapsed. At this juncture, it will not be proper to remand the matter to the Labour Court to enable the employer to adduce fresh evidence in regard to gainful employment of the workmen. The employer failed to do so at appropriate stage. In that view of the matter I am not inclined to remand the matter back to the Labour Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, I do not find any justification in the refusal of the courts below to award back wages to the workmen. I, therefore, modify the order of the Labourt Court to that extent and hold that the workmen are entitled to back wages. 9. In the result this writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. Rule made absolute.