DHARMADHIKARI J. ( 1 ) THIS petition by the M. P. State Cooperative marketing Federation, Ltd. Bhopal, which is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the M. P. Cooperative Societies act, 1950 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed to challenge the order (Annexure p. 3) passed by the Board of Revenue (Respondent No. 1)dated 21. 8. 1989, which confirms the order of Additional Registrar of the cooperative Societies (Annexure p. 2 ). reinstating respondent No. 2 in service with full back wages. . ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Federation suitable that pursuant to the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 2 M. S. Singhal has been reinstated in service and has also earned promotion. Learned counsel appearing for the Federation, was enable to point out any illegality in the order directing the reinstatement of the respondent No. 2 in service. Learned counsel assailled the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the applicable authority under the provisions of the Act directing payment of full back wages to respondent No. 2 for the entire period during which he was put of service. It is argued on behalf of the Federation that respondent No. 2 did not prove that he was not gainfully employed during the period in question arid, therefore, that was no justification to award full back wages. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 on the other hand pointed out that respondent No. 2 was terminated from service on 4. 11. 1970 without following the provisions of the statutory rules framed in the year 1966 which required prior approval of the Registrar. Cooperative Societies. It is submitted that the termination of respondent No. 2 from service was per se in flegrant violation of service Rules and the federation indulged in fruitless litigation during which respondent No. 2 has to suffer great hardship and financial loss. He relied on Central Cooperative Consumers' store Ltd. v. Labour Court, H. P. at Shimla and another, (1993) 3 S. C. C. 214] in support of his contention, that where the employee is not at fault and the litigation has been prolonged solely due to the fault of the employer, back wages cannot be denied to the employee. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Federation relied on decision in squitable Coal Co. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Federation relied on decision in squitable Coal Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Singh and another, (A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 761)guna Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Somprakash Mahendra and another, (1987 M. P. L. J. 414) : M. K. Electricity Board v. Basant Amar Pandey (1985 M. P. L. J. 457) : The Managing Director U. P. Warehousing Corporation and others v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee (A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 840 ). On the basis of the aforesaid rulings, it is submitted that the termination of the services of respondent No. 2 was ultimately found to be bad only on a technical ground that the order of termination was passed by the Secretary of the Federation and not the Managing Director in accordance with the Service Rules of 1966. Learned council for the Federation submits that looking to the nature of the illegality involved which was only of a technical. nature and the fact that no evidence was led by the parties on the issue ofgrant of back wages, the matter may either be remitted to the Deputy registrar for trying the issue of back wages or in the alternative some reasonable amount of back wages be awarded instead of full back wages. Learned counsel for the Federation stated that roughly a sum little over Rs 1 lac would be the amount of back wages payable to the employee. Since the employee had to suffer through a long course of litigation for no fault on his part, there is no justification to deny him the back wages which the Federation, which is an apex society engaged in the field of marketing of essential Commodities, is able to pay. Respondent No. 2, therefore, cannot be denied the back wages, which, however are to be calculated by the Federation on the basis of the pay scale applicable to the post on which he was working as revised from time to time. ( 5 ) IT is true that the award of back wages is a matter in the discretion of the authority deciding the service dispute. See The Cases cited by the Parties (Supra ). ( 5 ) IT is true that the award of back wages is a matter in the discretion of the authority deciding the service dispute. See The Cases cited by the Parties (Supra ). Grant of denial of back wages fully or partly consequent upon the rainstatement of an employee is a matter of discretion to be decided by the court on several relevant factors, such as capacity of the employer to pay, the wages earned by the employee in the interim period, if any, degree of fault on the part of the employee or employer and other relevant circumstances brought on record of the case. ( 6 ) IN the instant case the petitioner's services were terminated by an order simpliciter passed on 4. 11. 1970 by an authority not competent to do so. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, set aside his termination but did not award him back wages, The employee had, therefore, to prefer an appeal. The employer could have at that stage, reinstated the employee but instead it took a decision to take up the matter in appeal to the Board of Revenue. The litigation thus/was prolonged at the instance of the Federation. No evidence was led by the employer to show that the employee was gainfully employed after his termination. The burden to prove gainful employment of the employee was on the employer. No effect in that direction was made in the Courts below and no such averment of his gainful employment has been made in this petition. The Federation being an apex marketing society cannot deny its financial capacity to pay, the total lump sum roughly calculated to little over is one lac. The contention advanced on behalf of the employer cannot be accepted that termination was set aside only on a technical ground. Non-passing of an order by a competent authority is a vital defect in the order. The employee had to suffer privation for a long period of 17 years for no apparent fault on his part. There was, therefore, no circumstances, justifying denial of full back wages. The Board of Revenue after duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly awarded full back wages to the employee. The employee had to suffer privation for a long period of 17 years for no apparent fault on his part. There was, therefore, no circumstances, justifying denial of full back wages. The Board of Revenue after duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly awarded full back wages to the employee. The decision of the Supreme Court in case of Central Cooperative Consumers' store Ltd. v. Labour Court, H. P. At Shimla and another (Supra) relied on behalf of the employee fully support the case for award of full back wages. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. .