ORDER 1. In spite of notice received by the respondent No.2 on 31-7-2007, none appears nor any representation is made on behalf of the respondent No.2 in the matter. Thus, this matter is being considered without hearing the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner impugns the order dated 21-1-1999 passed by the Industrial Court, Raipur in Appeal No.521/MPIR Act/96, whereby the petitioner has been reinstated in service without back wages. The petitioner is challenging denial of wages in this petition. 3. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working as Assistant with the respondent No.2. His services were terminated on 9-5-1991. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 31 (3) of the then M.P. industrial Relations Act, 1960 in Labour Court, Raipur. The Labour Court by order dated 21-9-1996 dismissed the application of the petitioner. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the Industrial Court carne to the conclusion that the respondent failed to prove misconduct in the enquiry and the termination order was passed against the petitioner only when other persons were involved in the alleged misconduct i.e., non-compliance of the transfer order. After having held that the termination order was bad on account of the fact, that misconduct was not proved. The Industrial Court directed re-instatement of the petitioner in service without back wages by order dated 21-1-1999 (Annexure P/1). 4. Shri Kale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the termination order has been found illegal, the petitioner is entitled to full back wages as the petitioner was restrained by illegal order of the respondent No.2 from discharging his functioning. Learned counsel would further submit that basic principle of grant of back wages is that if the petitioner has been deprived of salary by illegal order, the petitioner is entitled to 100% back wages. The Industrial Court has not considered the fact as to whether the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere or not. The petitioner was not employed any-where and has not earned any income during the period of termination. The petitioner has been reinstated in service, pursuant to the order dated 21-1-1999. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It appears that denial of back wages is not based on any facts. The petitioner was not employed any-where and has not earned any income during the period of termination. The petitioner has been reinstated in service, pursuant to the order dated 21-1-1999. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It appears that denial of back wages is not based on any facts. The Tribunal below ought to have considered the fact with regard to the gainful employment or financial burden on the respondent No.2. Nothing has been done. The respondent No.2 has chosen not to appear and contest the matter. 6. In view of well settled principle and with regard to the fact that the petitioner remained out of job for a period of seven years and eight months, grant of 100% back wages without any work may not be appropriate in the facts of the case. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ws Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. I has observed as under: "11. In the very nature of things there cannot be a strait-jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. Ail relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner. The reason for exercising discretion must be cogent and convincing and must appear on the fact of the record. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authority, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, according to law and not humour. It is not to be arbitrary, vague and fanciful but legal and regular (see Susannah Sharp Vs. Wakefield)". 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter or P.G.I of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh Vs. Raj Kumar has observed as under: "9. The Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would apply with the requirement of law. Wakefield)". 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter or P.G.I of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh Vs. Raj Kumar has observed as under: "9. The Labour Court being the final court of facts came to a conclusion that payment of 60% wages would apply with the requirement of law. The finding of perversity or being erroneous or not in accordance with law shall have to be recorded with reasons in order to assail the finding of the Tribunal or the Labour Court. It is not for the High Court to go into the factual aspects of the matter and there is an existing limitation on the High Court to that effect. In the event, however the finding of fact is based on any misappreciation of evidence, that would be deemed to be an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled to the effect that finding of the Labour Court cannot be challenged in a proceeding in a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Labour Court was insufficient or inadequate though, however, perversity of the order would warrant intervention of the High Court. The observation, as above, stands well settled since the decision of this Court in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan. 12. Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in it has to be dealt with in the facts and circumstances of each case and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety." 9. The said ratio is followed and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar A Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of R.S. Dwivedi Vs. MP. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., Bhopal and others, decided on 10th August, 2005, applying to the dicta as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases mentioned hereinabove, has come to the conclusion that payment of back wages being purely a discretionary element has to be dealt with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Even though there is no statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. 10. Even though there is no statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. 10. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages along with allowances from the date of termination i.e., 9-5-1991 till his reinstatement in service on 17-51999. The petition is allowed to the above extent. 11. The respondent No.2 is directed to make payment of 50% back wages and other allowances within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. Petition Allowed.