Judgment Harbans Lal, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of CWP No. 5192 of 1984 preferred by State of Punjab and another as well as CWP No. 3259 of 1985 filed by Hari Ram workman against the Award dated 19.4.1984 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, whereby he set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.1978 vide which the services of the workman Hari Ram were terminated by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh and directed the latter to reinstate him (Hari Ram) in service with all benefits of its continuity from the date of the said order except that the workman will not be entitled to wages for the back period i.e. the period preceding the date of this Award. 2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that on 19.4.1978 when the bus on which Hari Ram was the conductor was checked at Rai, it was found that he had collected full fare from Delhi to Ambala from two passengers but the tickets issued to them were short of Rs. 3.20/-. Further on 21.4.1978, when he was on duty on bus No 4406 on route No. 68, during the course of checking at Shahbad, two passengers were found without tickets from whom he had collected Rs. 2.60 as fare. On 17.2.1978, he was on duty on bus No. 1301 on route No. 27, when he was checked at Bhankerpur, it was found that he had not issued the tickets to three passengers though he had charged Rs. 3.60/- from them when they were travelling from Zirakpur to Bhankarpur after having boarded the bus from Zirakpur. During inquiry, it was found that he had embezzled a sum of Rs. 9.40/-, which he had recovered from the passengers and as its consequence, his services were terminated vide order referred to above. He raised dispute with regard to the legality of the said order contending that it was illegal and this dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). 3. The learned Labour Court framed the following issue: "Whether the enquiry conducted against the workman is vitiated." 4. After recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Labour Court set aside the termination order with a direction as noted supra. 3. The learned Labour Court framed the following issue: "Whether the enquiry conducted against the workman is vitiated." 4. After recording the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Labour Court set aside the termination order with a direction as noted supra. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned Award, both the parties have filed these petitions. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the impugned Award with due care and circumspection. 6. Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the State urged with great eloquence that albeit departmental inquiry has been found to be fair and proper nonetheless, by wrongly calling in aid the provisions of Section 11 -A of the Act, the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the workman with all benefits of its continuity of service without taking a serious note of the gravity of his guilt in view of the observations rendered in re : Rajender Singh R. vs. Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2000(3) SCT 1 and Divisional Controller N.E.K.R.T.C. vs. H. Amaresh, 2006(5) Services Law Reporter 721. 7. Mr. J.C. Verma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Workman countered these arguments by urging with full force that on all the three charges, the findings of the Labour Court are in favour of the workman. That being so, the Labour Court was required to allow the back" wages as well. Thus, protanto, the Award is liable to set aside in view of the ratio decidendi laid down in re : Hari Palace, Ambala City vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another, 1979 The Punjab Law Report 720 and Sukhdev Singh vs. General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran, 2004(2) Recent Services Judgments 184. 8. I have well considered the rival contentions. In re : Rajender Singh R. (supra), the Apex Court held that the appellant would thus be entitled to continuity of service, but, would not be entitled to back wages. Palpably, these observations do not subserve the contention of Mr. Chaudhary. The facts of H. Amareshs case (supra) are little bit distinguishable from the one in hand. In re : Rajender Singh R. (supra), the Apex Court held that the appellant would thus be entitled to continuity of service, but, would not be entitled to back wages. Palpably, these observations do not subserve the contention of Mr. Chaudhary. The facts of H. Amareshs case (supra) are little bit distinguishable from the one in hand. In that case, there was also charge against the respondent workman that he was in the habit of consuming alcohol while on duty and had created bad seen of the Corporation among public by spoiling the image of the Corporation, apart from the financial loss to the Corporation. Here in this case, the Labour Court has held that the finding given by the Inquiry Officer is vitiated and cannot be affirmed. The Labour Court while dealing with the first charge held that consequently, the inference drawn by the enquiry officer that the workman was guilty of committing criminal breach of trust in respect of sum of Rs. 3.20 by issuing ticket short of that amount, to the two passengers travelling from Delhi to Ambala is manifestly unreasonable and cannot be affirmed". Thus, it was held that the first charge was not proved. While dealing with the second charge, the learned Labour Court held that "The enquiry officer was, therefore, clearly in error in recording the finding against the workman on this charge and the same cannot be sustained.".As regards the third charge, the Labour Court held that "Therefore, the finding of the enquiry officer that the conductor had embezzled sum of Rs. 3.60 on account of the fare collected from the passengers found without tickets cannot be sustained." Axiomatically, the charges against the workman in fact were not established. Admittedly, the workman has been reinstated. In view of Rajender Singh R.s case (supra), there is nothing wrong in allowing the continuity of service in favour of the workman and depriving him of the back wages. 9. Admittedly, the workman has been reinstated. In view of Rajender Singh R.s case (supra), there is nothing wrong in allowing the continuity of service in favour of the workman and depriving him of the back wages. 9. A glance through the observations rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in re : Hari Palace, Ambala City (supra), would reveal that their lordships had mainly relied upon M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited vs. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited, AIR 1979 SC 75 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that "full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. But now the law has undergone metamorphosis. In re : UP State Brassware Corporation Limited and another vs. Uday Narain Pandey, 2006(1) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Apex Court while referring to M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Private (supra) held as under: "A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so. If that principle is applied, the functions of an Industrial Court shall lose much of their significance. Although direction to pay full backwages on a declaration that the order of termination was invalid used to be the usual result but now, with the passage of time, a pragmatic view of the matter is being taken by the court realising that an industry may not be compelled to pay to the workman for the period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all to it and/or for a period that was spent unproductively as a result whereof the employer would be compelled to go back to a situation which prevailed many years ago, namely, when the workman was retrenched. The changes brought about by the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, probably having regard to the changes in the policy decisions of the Government in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalisation, privatisation and outsourcing, is evident. No precise formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances payment of entire back wages should be allowed. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It would, however, not be correct to contend that it is automatic. No precise formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances payment of entire back wages should be allowed. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It would, however, not be correct to contend that it is automatic. It should not be granted mechanically only because on technical grounds or otherwise an order of termination is found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. While granting relief application of mind on the part of the Industrial Court is imperative. Payment of full back wages cannot be the natural consequence. Although earlier the Supreme Court insisted that it was for the employer to raise the plea that the workman was not gainfully employed during the period for which back wages are claimed but having regard to the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act or the provisions analogous thereto, such a plea should be raised by the workman. The respondent workman did not plead that he after his purported retrenchment was wholly unemployed. The respondent did not raise any plea in his written statement that he was not gainfully employed during the said period. As the question as regards termination of service of the respondent by the appellant is not in issue it will be assumed that the services of the respondent were terminated in violation of Section 6-N of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act. Further more the establishment of the appellant wherein the respondent could be directed to be reinstated had been sold on 26-3-1993. In that view of the matter, Section 6-0 of the UP. Industrial Disputes Act would apply in terms whereof compensation will be payable in the same manner as if he was retrenched under Section 6-N thereof." (Emphasis supplied) 10. An identical view has been taken by the Apex Court in re : Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited vs. Mumni, 2006(9)Supreme Court Cases 434 as well as in Chandu Lal vs. The Management of M/s. Pan American World Airways Inc., AIR 1985 SC 1128 by referring to M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra). 11. In view of the afore-quoted law, the workman is not automatically entitled to get back wages. The observations made in re: Sukhdev Singh (supra) are based on Hari Palace, Ambala Citys case (supra). 11. In view of the afore-quoted law, the workman is not automatically entitled to get back wages. The observations made in re: Sukhdev Singh (supra) are based on Hari Palace, Ambala Citys case (supra). Ostensibly, as revealed by Uday Narain Pandeys case, (supra), there is departure from the view adopted in re : M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 12. In re: State of M.P. and others vs. Arjun Lal Rajak, 2006(2) Supreme Court Cases 711, the Apex Court held that the onus to prove that workman had not been gainfully employed during the period of termination of his services and his reinstatement, lies upon him. In the instant case, the workman has not disclosed as to whether or not he remained gainfully employed any where during the aforesaid period, though the onus lay upon him. 13. Adverting to the facts of the present case, General Manager, Punjab Roadways has not posed a challenge to the reinstatement order of the workman. Admittedly, he has been reinstated. Statedly, he has retired from service. 14. On the overall view of the matter, it would not be in the fitness of the things to interfere with the impugned award in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 15. As a sequel of the above discussion, both these petitions are dismissed.