J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) IN this group of 47 petitions under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of india, common questions are involved against common award dated 13th October, 1995, therefore, upon joint request, they are being disposed of by this common judgement. ( 2 ) 22 petitions out of 47 are filed by the employees whereas remaining 25 petitions are filed by Keshod Nagarpalika. Therefore, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the employees and the employer for the sake of convenience and brevity. ( 3 ) THE employees were engaged as Casual labourers by the Nagarpalika, Keshod during the period from 1989 to 1993. The employees are working as helpers, clerks and peons. 26 employees came to be terminated by the employer on the ground that the collector directed the authority to terminate the services by passing an order dated 10. 11. 1993. The employees, therefore, raised industrial dispute against their termination by reference. The Labour Court, at Junagadh, allowed the reference partly and directed the employer to reinstate the employees and to pay 25% backwages. The employees filed 22 petitions against the award of the Labour Court, in not granting full backwages and the employer has filed 25 petitions against the order of reinstatement and grant of 25 percent backwages. That is how this group of 47 petitions under Arts. 226 and 227 of Constitution of India have come up before this Court for consideration and adjudication. It would be expedient to examine the material factual aspects which are relevant for the purpose of decision in the entire group of 47 petitions. The general board of the Respondent Municipality by its 12. 5. 1993 resolution No. 15 dated 12. 5. 1993 resolved to approach the director of Municipalities with a request to sanction additional staff. The employees came to be appointed on various dates as daily wagers. The proposal for sanction of the additional set up was forwarded 27. 5. 93 to the Director of Municipality by the President of employer nagarpalika together with the resolution of the Muncipality. The Executive Committee of Keshod Nagarpalika under 27. 7. 93 resolution No. 11 decided to absorb daily wagers including the petitioners in time scale as admissible to Class III and Class IV employees. The General Board passed resolution No. 23 dated 20th August, 20. 8. The Executive Committee of Keshod Nagarpalika under 27. 7. 93 resolution No. 11 decided to absorb daily wagers including the petitioners in time scale as admissible to Class III and Class IV employees. The General Board passed resolution No. 23 dated 20th August, 20. 8. 93 1993 whereby the petitioners who were continuously working on workcharge basis in the Nagarpalika were absorbed on temporary basis and were given temporary appointment on various posts held by them on the basis of Government Rules and regulations as regards pay allowances and grade. By the order dated 27. 10. 93 passed by the employer 27. 10. 93 nagarpalika, the petitioner came to be appointed on temporary appointment. The administrator of Municipality was appointed by the 1. 11. 93 government. The Collector, Junagadh passed interim injunction suspending 8. 11. 93 the execution and operation of resoulution No. 23 of the General board of respondent Municipality in MUN Case No. 31/93 filed by one ex/councillor. The Nagarpalika terminated the services of 26 employees 10. 11. 93 without notice, notice pay in lieu of notice or compensation. The employees served the Administrator of Nagarpalika with a 11. 11. 93 notice for reinstatement with backwages and also presented application for reference to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, porbandar. 26 references came to be made to the Labour Court, junagadh which came to be numbered as Ref. LCJ. No. 111/93 to 136/93. Special Civil Application No. 13403 of 1993 came to be filed in 1. 12. 93 this Court for breach of the order and resultant action for contempt which was not entertained at that stage and came to be dismissed. ( 4 ) THE labour Court upon appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the vidence on record allowed the reference in part and directed the employer Keshod muncipality to reinstate the employees and to pay 25 percent of the backwages holding that there was retrenchment. In reference (LCJ) No. 142/92, backwages were granted to the extent of 100 per cent. ( 5 ) AS stated hereinbefore, against the impugned order, both the parties have filed aforesaid 47 petitions. Out of 26 employees, two references of two employees came to be withdrawn during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. In reference (LCJ) No. 142/92, backwages were granted to the extent of 100 per cent. ( 5 ) AS stated hereinbefore, against the impugned order, both the parties have filed aforesaid 47 petitions. Out of 26 employees, two references of two employees came to be withdrawn during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. ( 6 ) DURING the course of submissions raised before this Court, the learned advocate appearing for the employer Nagarpalika, inter alia contended that pending the petitions, the Nagarpalika has reinstated all the employees who had raised industrial dispute. Therefore, he contended that the amount of backwages of 25 per cent awarded to the employees by the Labour Court while passing the order of reinstatement is harsh, excessive and illigal. He, therefore, submitted that this is not a fit case for grant of backwages at all. The learned advocate appearing for the employees contended that reinstatement is given to the employees by the employer Nagarpalika during the course of the pendency of the petitions. However, it is contended on behalf of the employees that the amount of backwages to the extent ot 25 per cent awarded by the labour Court is grossly inadequate. In short, the dispute has been narrowed down to a small compass. The only question which is required to be examined by this Court is as to whether the grant of backwages to the extent of 25 per cent is legal or not. Learned advocate for the employees has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Hindustan Tin Works private Limited vs. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. , AIR 1979 SC 75 wherein, in a case of retrenchment, 75 per cent backwages came to be awarded. The award of the Labour Court was modified in the said judgment to the effect that the retrenched workmen who were then reinstated Should be paid 75 percent of backwages. Placing reliance on this judgement, it is contended that the Labour Court has committed serious error in granting only 25 per cent of the backwages. It was also contended that the termination or retrenchment made by the Nagarpalika was illegal on the wrong interpretation of the order of the Collector and employees were not gainfully employed. Therefore, they are entitled to full backwages. It was also contended that the termination or retrenchment made by the Nagarpalika was illegal on the wrong interpretation of the order of the Collector and employees were not gainfully employed. Therefore, they are entitled to full backwages. , ( 7 ) IN support of the said contention, reliance is also placed on a decision of the supreme Court rendered in Gujarat Steel Tubes Limited vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor sabha, AIR 1980 SC 1896 . The question before the Supreme Court in that case was that if the order of discharge or retrenchment is found illegal or bad in law, what is the remedy available and what is the scope and ambit of Sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act ). In the said case, 75 per cent of backwages came to be granted relying on the decision of Hindustan Tin Works case (Supra ). ( 8 ) RELYING upon the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court, the learned advocate appearing for the employees contended that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court under Sec. 11-A of the Act, is not just, proper and legal. It was further submitted that the labour Court ought to have granted full backwages when the termination of service was found illegal and without any fault on the part of the employees. The employees, thus, were innocent and they suffered much. Therefore, the Labour Court while exercising discretionary power under Sec. 11-A of the ID act should have awarded full backwages as there was a mistake on the part of the employer in interpreting the order of the Collector and when the employees remained unemployed during the said period. ( 9 ) WHEREAS against the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate appearing for the employer Municipality has forcefully contended that the employees are not entitled to backwages as they have not been able to prove that they were not gainfully employed. ( 10 ) THE provisions of Sec. 11-A may be examined as they are relevant for appreciation and adjudication of the questions raised in this group of petitions. ( 10 ) THE provisions of Sec. 11-A may be examined as they are relevant for appreciation and adjudication of the questions raised in this group of petitions. Section 11-A reads as under :"11-A Powers of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen-Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workmen on such terms and conditions, if and as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workmen including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter. " ( 11 ) IT is very clear from the aforesaid provision under Sec. 1l-A that the legislature has empowered the Tribunals or Courts with wide powers. No doubt, the powers of the tribunal or the Court under Sec. 11-A are to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of a given case, it is true that they are not arbitrary, unguided and unregulated powers. The power to award any lesser punishment under Sec. 1 l-A is not restricted to quantum of punishment but is also extended to quantum of backwages. Ordinarily, in a case where retrenchment or termination is quashed and set aside finding that there was no fault or mistake on the part of the employees, they are entitled to full baekwages provided they were not gainfully employed. It is also a settled proposition of law mat the factum of unemployment or that there was gainful employment during the period from the date of retrenhment till the revocation of the order is not on the shoulder of the employee. It is also a settled proposition of law mat the factum of unemployment or that there was gainful employment during the period from the date of retrenhment till the revocation of the order is not on the shoulder of the employee. It is a settled proposition of law that if no evidence is led by the employer about the gainful employment of the employees during the said period, ordinarily, the employee would be entitled to full backwages. ( 12 ) IT is true that the discretionary power under Sec. 11-A are required to be exercised taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances. When the termination of service is revoked which was based on misconduct, the employee ordinarily would not be entitled to full backwages. In short, the discretionary power under Sec. 11-A of the ID Act exercised by the Labour Court in granting 25 per cent of backwages is in focus. After having taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and the discretionary nature of exercise of powers under Sec. Il-A of the act, the ends of justice will be satisfied if the amount of backwages is enchanced from 25 per cent to 50 per cent instead of 100 per cent claimed on behalf of the employees. ( 13 ) THE wide discretion under Sec. 1 l-A of the Act has to be exercised in the light of the factual scenario emerging from the record of each case. There is no dispute about the fact that the employees carne to be reinstated by the employer Municipality during the pendency of the petitions. There is also no dispute about the fact that the termination of the employees by the employer Municipality was founded upon the order of the Collector on a misapprehension and misinterpretation. Thus, there was no fault on the part of the employees. There was no any direction by the Collector to quash the order of appointments pursuant to the resolution of the employer Municipality. Thus the mass termination order recorded by the employer Municipality against the 26 employees was an outcome of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the direction issued by the collector in connection with the resolution. This aspect ought to have been examined by the Labour Court while exercising the discretionary power under Sec. 11 -A of the ID Act. Thus the mass termination order recorded by the employer Municipality against the 26 employees was an outcome of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the direction issued by the collector in connection with the resolution. This aspect ought to have been examined by the Labour Court while exercising the discretionary power under Sec. 11 -A of the ID Act. After having considered all the relevant facts and circumstances and the underlying purport and design of the provisions of Sec. 1 l-A of the ID Act, this Court is satisfied that the employees are entitled to at least backwages to extent of 50 per cent. ( 14 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 313/96 is filed by the Municipality against the award of reinstatement with full backwages. The impugned award in this petition came to be passed ex-parte. The employer Municipality failed to appear and contest the claim made by the employee. It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the Municipality that there was no failure on the part of the Municipality and even if there was failure, it was not the intention and therefore the matter was required to be remanded. This submission raised by the Municipality has, rightly not been opposed by the other side. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to he remanded for fresh trial after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The learned advocate for the employees submits mat the employees will be entitled to backwages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement and the same may be clarified. It needs no clarification. Once the backwages are awarded, they would be entitled to accordingly. ( 15 ) IN the result, Special Civil Application Nos. 1909/96 and 2614/96 to 2634/96 are partly allowed and the award of backwages to the extent of 25 per cent is enchanced to 50 per cent confirming the order of reinstatement. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. ( 16 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 289/96 to 312/96 filed by the employer municipality shall stand rejected. 1909/96 and 2614/96 to 2634/96 are partly allowed and the award of backwages to the extent of 25 per cent is enchanced to 50 per cent confirming the order of reinstatement. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. ( 16 ) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 289/96 to 312/96 filed by the employer municipality shall stand rejected. Special Civil Application No. 313/96 also filed by the municipality against the impugned award, which is ex-parte, is allowed and the impugned award is quashed and set aside and the matter remanded to the Labour Court for fresh trial and hearing after giving opportunity to the parties as early as possible, as the matter is old. .