JUDGMENT 1. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that no ground for interference is made out in this appeal. 2. The retrenchment effected by the appellant was found to be invalid by the Labour Court. The respondent-workman was in employment for almost 18 years before his services were terminated in 1998. Finding retrenchment to be invalid, he has been reinstated with full back wages by the award of the Labour Court. 3. The petitioner-appellant was primarily aggrieved with the grant of back-wages on the ground that there was no pleading by the workman that he was gainfully employed during the period the termination order remained in force. 4. We are not impressed by the contention reinstatement with full back-wages where long and uninterrupted services, as was the case of the respondent-workman, are terminated unceremoniously, is the rule and not awarding back wages or reinstatement is an exception. In the present cask no such case is made out for not giving relief of reinstatement with full back wages. Once termination is found to be invalid, he is deemed to be in continuous service. It does not depend on specific pleading by the workman about his unemployment. The principle is well settled that in such case it is for the employer, if he wants to avoid liability to pay back wages, to plead and prove that the respondent-workman was gainfully employed within that period. rely doing some job for sustaining himself during the period of unemployment does not amount to gainful employment. 5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed. *******