Judgment ( 1. ) THE only question involved in this writ is whether Labour Court was justified in refusing to award the back wages to the petitioner. In other words, the question that arises for consideration is whether finding of Labour Court in refusing to award back wages is sustainable or not. ( 2. ) A reference under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act was made to Labour Court for deciding the legality of termination order of the petitioner. It was contested by the petitioner as also by the respondent No. 2 (employer ). Parties led evidence to support their stand. Eventually by impugned award dated 17-5-2000 passed by Labour Court in Case No. 44/91/idr (Annexure P-5), the Labour Court answered the reference partly in favour of petitioner, It was held that misconduct alleged against the petitioner is not proved. Accordingly termination order was set aside and direction to reinstatement followed. However, while setting aside of the termination order and directing reinstatement, the Labour Court declined to award back wages to the petitioner. It is against this finding, i. e. , declining to award back wages, the petitioner (employee) has filed this writ and prayed for modification of the impugned award to the extent of granting back wages. ( 3. ) HEARD Shri S. S. Kemkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri G. S. Patwardhan, learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 4. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am inclined to allow the writ and modify the impugned award. ( 5. ) IT being a settled rule of law in a case of this nature that once the termination order is set aside and reinstatement is directed it follows as a rule to award the relief of back wages to an employee. It is only when the employer is able to establish that employee was gainfully employed after termination and was thus earning then only the Court/tribunal may consider declining to award back wages either fully or partially. In the present case, the employee, i. e. , petitioner in his evidence clearly stated that he did not get any employment after termination and hence he remained unemployed throughout. On the other hand, the employer (respondent) did not lead any evidence to show that petitioner was employed somewhere and hence not entitled to claim any back wages. In the present case, the employee, i. e. , petitioner in his evidence clearly stated that he did not get any employment after termination and hence he remained unemployed throughout. On the other hand, the employer (respondent) did not lead any evidence to show that petitioner was employed somewhere and hence not entitled to claim any back wages. In the absence of any evidence led by the respondent (employer), the petitioner was entitled to claim full back wages. The learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court thus committed an error of law when he declined to award back wages to the petitioner. It may be mentioned that on identical facts, this very respondent has terminated the employment of another employee alongwith the petitioner. In that case also the back wages were declined by the Labour Court, but this Court in W. P. No. 1910/2000, decided on 29-3-2001 allowed the writ and granted back wages. I follow the writ issued in W. P. No. 1910/2000 and allow this writ. ( 6. ) ACCORDINGLY the writ is allowed. Impugned award dated 17-5-2000 (Annexure P-5) is modified to the extent that petitioner is awarded full back wages from the date of termination till he is reinstated. No cost.