JUDGMENT:- Petitioner- a Road Transport Corporation for State of Maharashtra has challenged the grant of relief of full backwages for about 23 years by the Labour Court at Buldhana in its award dated 18-10-2008 in IDA Reference No. 4/2007. Relief of reinstatement could not be granted as the respondent employee superannuated in the meanwhile. Notice for final disposal was accordingly issued and coercive recovery has been stayed subject to petitioner depositing the amount equal to 25% of the total grant. Accordingly amount of Rs. 2,20,074/- has been deposited with the Registry of this Court by petitioners. Writ Petition is thus heard finally by consent and by issuing Rule in the matter making the same returnable forthwith. 2. Respondent who joined the services with petitioner on 18-12-1965 was working as head-mechanic at its Khamgaon depot in Buldhana district. There was theft of tyres between night of 5-8-1975 and 6-8-1975 during duty of respondent. Khamgaon Police registered C.R. No. 213/1975 under sections 419, 424, 511, 170 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code and the respondent carne to be arrested. He came to be removed under Regulation 61 (b) of Service Regulations without assigning any reason on 15-9-1975. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Nagpur vs. Shrihari, reported at 1990 Mh.L.J 668 declared Regulation 61 (b) to be unconstitutional. Following this the Labour Court has directed petitioner employer to pay full backwages to the respondent from 15-9-1975 till 31-7-1998 i.e. the date on which he reached age of 58 years as also other retiring benefits. 3. Shri Wankhede, learned Counsel contends that the respondent is guilty of laches and he did no approach the Court of law within reasonable time. He filed ULP complaint 251/1980 along with application for condonation of delay almost 5 years after his removal and then did not prosecute it seriously but switched between the different forums though prohibited by section 59 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTU & PULP Act" for short). In this connection he has also invited attention to entire history including earlier judgment delivered by me in Writ Petition No. 2418/1995 on 12-3-2007. Hence, Labour Court could not have put such heavy burden on public exchequer ignoring this conduct and laches. In this connection he has also invited attention to entire history including earlier judgment delivered by me in Writ Petition No. 2418/1995 on 12-3-2007. Hence, Labour Court could not have put such heavy burden on public exchequer ignoring this conduct and laches. He has also relied upon certain precedents to urge that in present situation grant of relief of full backwages is unsustainable. 4. Shri Khan, learned counsel for respondent on the other hand has submitted that present Reference No. 4/2007 in which impugned award is passed is held to be legal, maintainable and valid. Hence earlier litigation loses its relevance. The respondent has established that he was without any source of income and was trying all legal means and ways as per expert's advice and there was no deliberate negligence on his part. The efforts of respondent were within knowledge of the petitioner organization and though in 1990 itself the regulation 61 was quashed, no work was offered to petitioner. Respondent was acquitted in the criminal case and other employee Deshmukh against whom similar action was taken, was reinstated by the petitioners. He also invites attention to past developments and relies on precedents to show that no interference is warranted in the matter. 5. Undisputed position shows that the petitioner-employee was dismissed under Regulation 61 of Bombay State Transport Regulation, on 15-9-1975. He filed departmental appeal against it and at the same time, he also moved conciliation machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act. Similar action under Regulation 61 was also taken against another employee by name Shri Deshmukh, who chose to file complaint under section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act which came to be allowed. After the said complaint was allowed and after his departmental appeal was dismissed, petitioner instead of prosecuting further the conciliation proceedings chose to file a complaint under section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act. As its filing was delayed, he filed application for condonation of delay. Office of Labour Court at Akola, registered the said proceeding as Complaint ULPA No. 251/1980. The proceedings were not registered as Misc. ULPA proceeding. As its filing was delayed, he filed application for condonation of delay. Office of Labour Court at Akola, registered the said proceeding as Complaint ULPA No. 251/1980. The proceedings were not registered as Misc. ULPA proceeding. The application for condonation of delay moved therein by the present petitioner was to be considered by the Labour Court but on 18-7-1981 it dismissed the said application by observing that the filing of the said complaint itself was barred in view of the provisions of section 59 of the MRTU & PULP Act. This invocation of bar and refusal to consider the application for condonation of delay was then challenged by the petitioner by filing Revision under section 44 before the Industrial Court, which was earlier registered as ULPA Revision No. 122/1983. In that Revision the Industrial Court Amravati 30-8-1984 directed the remand to the Labour Court asking it to apply its mind to the merits of the reasons pointed out in condonation of delay application. After the matter was sent back for said purpose, on 22-11-2004, the said proceeding (complaint as registered) itself was again dismissed in default. Thus delay itself in filing ULP Complaint was not condoned. 6. In the meanwhile, the conciliation proceedings initiated by the present petitioner were taken up and a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to appropriate government. The appropriate government thereafter made reference of Industrial Dispute to Labour Court at Akola, which came to be registered as Reference No. 31/1987. Therein again objection was raised by the employer, pointing out bar under section 59 of the Act and upholding that bar the Labour Court answered the reference in negative by award dated 7-11-1994. The Labour Court found that because of bar under section 59, Reference Proceedings were not maintainable. In earlier judgment delivered by me in Writ Petition No. 2418/1995 on 12-3-2007 such bar is found legally not applicable in the light of the Full Bench judgment delivered in the case of C. S. Dixit vs. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Pune, 2000(4) Mh.L.1. (F.B.) 261 = 2000 (11) CLR 719. The Labour Court had taken up the application for condonation of delay for decision first and Labour Court was therefore aware that without condoning it, adjudication on merits of ULP Complaint was not possible. (F.B.) 261 = 2000 (11) CLR 719. The Labour Court had taken up the application for condonation of delay for decision first and Labour Court was therefore aware that without condoning it, adjudication on merits of ULP Complaint was not possible. It therefore became apparent that ULPA complaint was not considered on merits and hence bar under section 59 of the MRTU & PULP Act was not attracted. Therefore the Reference No. 39/1987 was restored back to the tile of Labour Court for its further adjudication in accordance with law on merits. Upon transfer of this reference to Buldhana Labour Court, it came to be registered as Reference No. 4/2007. 7. Here very briefly the incident which prompted the petitioner to terminate respondent needs to be mentioned. There was theft of tyres between night of 5-81975 and 6-8-1975 during duty of respondent. Because of complaint lodged by the office of petitioner, Khamgaon Police registered Case No. 213/1975 under sections 419, 424, 511, 170 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code and respondent was arrested. Statements of respondent and other concerned employees were recorded by the Security Officer of petitioner. On that basis in exercise of powers under Regulation 61 (b), petitioner terminated respondent for loss of confidence by paying him two months wages. There was no show cause notice or departmental inquiry. It is not in dispute that criminal Court has acquitted the respondent in the matter. One G. B. Deshmukh a driver in employment of petitioner was also found involved and was similarly dealt with. However he was taken back as his ULP complaint was allowed. The date on which or the Court by which the respondent has been acquitted is not on record. But after his acquittal, petitioner has not taken any steps to hold the departmental inquiry and has also not pointed out why the inquiry could not have been held. In any case, after Regulation 61 (b) was found unconstitutional in 1990, the petitioner could have immediately arranged to take him back and proceed departmentally against him. As a public corporation and a model employer, it could have taken all these steps when it was all the while aware of attempts of respondent to get back into service. Labour Court had granted reinstatement to Deshmukh and he was also allowed to join back by the petitioners. 8. As a public corporation and a model employer, it could have taken all these steps when it was all the while aware of attempts of respondent to get back into service. Labour Court had granted reinstatement to Deshmukh and he was also allowed to join back by the petitioners. 8. In 2009 (121) FLR 381, M/s P. V. K. Distillery Ltd. vs. Mahendra Ram relied upon by Shri Khan, learned Counsel the Hon'ble Apex Court has reduced 100% backwages granted by Labour Court to 50% as the establishment of employer was declared sick and remained closed for several years. In paragraph 19 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that pendency of matter in different Courts for over two decades cannot be held against employee to deny him the backwages as he had approached the Court within a reasonable time. In 2007 (I) CLR 670, J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. K. P. Agrawal and another also pressed into service by the respondent, therein paragraph 19, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that award of backwages in matters where termination is set aside for non-compliance with statutory provisions or on account of victimization cannot be of any relevance when the Labour Court confirms the finding of misconduct but then interferes with the quantum of punishment. The view that full backwages would be the normal rule and party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure is also taken note of. In paragraph 15 while noticing the significant developments in field of law, it also points out its observations in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh, 2005 (II) CLR 1055 SC where total length of service is very small, award of backwages for large period between the date of termination and date of award is stated to be "wholly inappropriate". 9. Coming to cases relied on by respondent, in Executive Engineer, Public Health Division vs. Kumesh, 2008 (II) LLJ 826 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has reduced award of 50% backwages by Labour Court to 25% in facts and circumstances before it. But those facts and circumstances are not available to this Court. In Prakash Kisan Shirke vs. Koyana Education Society, 2009 (14) Scale 134, the Hon'ble Apex Court ordered reinstatement forthwith and awarded 25% backwages. Appellant there came to be employed as clerk in 13-10-1993 and terminated on 6-11-1995. But those facts and circumstances are not available to this Court. In Prakash Kisan Shirke vs. Koyana Education Society, 2009 (14) Scale 134, the Hon'ble Apex Court ordered reinstatement forthwith and awarded 25% backwages. Appellant there came to be employed as clerk in 13-10-1993 and terminated on 6-11-1995. School Tribunal at Kolhapur found termination bad on 26-6-1997 and its view was upheld by Single Judge of this Court. The Division Bench remanded the matter back to School Tribunal and employee approached Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court issued notice on 14-11-2008 and stayed the judgment of Division Bench. Management did not file any counter-affidavit before it and the Hon'ble Apex Court found order of remand unsustainable. In view of this finding, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted immediate reinstatement and awarded backwages at 25%. In Malia C. N. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2009 (IV) LLJ 667 (SC), appellant joined services in 1970 and was sent for advance training in January, 1986. He then proceeded on 30 days leave from March, 1986. He was terminated on 18-9-1987 for not joining after expiry of leave while according to him he forwarded several applications for leave-extension to undergo further training and for seeking service in foreign country. Single Judge granted him relief of reinstatement with full backwages and in intra Court Appeal, the Division Bench set aside the part of that order awarding backwages. In paragraph 12, the Hon'ble Apex Court holds that the two reasons viz., unauthorized leave and delay in approaching the Court were not sufficient either collectively or individually to deny the entire backwages. The case of unauthorized absence was found not established as there was no inquiry into rival stands. Delay was found taken care of by Single Judge by denying to appellant wages for the period from date of termination till date of filing writ petition. Hence, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted appellant employee before it 50% backwages from the date of termination till his superannuation. Respondent was directed to pay it within one month and in default simple interest at 9% was allowed on it. In 2010 (3) Mh.L.J (SC) 343 =2009 (14) SCALE 308, M/s Reetu Marbles vs. Prabhakant Shukla, respondent served employer from 1-3-1986 till his termination on 11-6-1987. Labour Court vide its award dated 27-9-2002 granted him relief of reinstatement but as he did not work, declined backwages. In 2010 (3) Mh.L.J (SC) 343 =2009 (14) SCALE 308, M/s Reetu Marbles vs. Prabhakant Shukla, respondent served employer from 1-3-1986 till his termination on 11-6-1987. Labour Court vide its award dated 27-9-2002 granted him relief of reinstatement but as he did not work, declined backwages. Respondent did not place on record any material to show that he was not gainfully employed during this period of 15 years. Respondent after joining duty worked for 6 days and then did not report for duty. He approached High Court and it granted him full backwages for this period of 15 years. Hon'ble Apex Court in this situation, after holding in paragraph 22 that grant of full backwages by High Court is unjustified and Labour Court having held termination illegal, unjustified in not granting any backwages at all; in paragraph 23 awarded 50% backwages from termination till reinstatement. In UPSRTC Ltd. vs. Sarada Prasad Misra, 2006 Lab.I.C. 2621, the Hon'ble Apex Court states that no precise formula can be adopted nor 'cast iron rule' can be laid down as to when payment of full backwages should be allowed by the Court or Tribunal which depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It explains that the approach of the Court/Tribunal should not be rigid or mechanical but flexible and realistic. The Court or Tribunal dealing with cases of industrial disputes may find force in the contention of the employee as to illegal termination of his services and may come to the conclusion that the action has been taken otherwise than in accordance with law. In such cases obviously, as laid down therein, the workman would be entitled to reinstatement but the question regarding payment of backwages is held to be independent of the first question as to entitlement of reinstatement in service. While considering and determining the second question, the Court or Tribunal has to consider all relevant circumstances referred to by it and keeping in view the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, pass an appropriate order. In the case before it, the services of the workman were terminated in year 1975. The award was passed on September 17, 1984 but was stayed by the High Court vide interim order dated March 25, 1985. The interim order was modified on February 4, 1988 and the respondent was reinstated immediately on February 9, 1988. In the case before it, the services of the workman were terminated in year 1975. The award was passed on September 17, 1984 but was stayed by the High Court vide interim order dated March 25, 1985. The interim order was modified on February 4, 1988 and the respondent was reinstated immediately on February 9, 1988. Therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court found that ends of justice would be met if the workman was allowed backwages to the extent of 50% from the date of the award till date he was reinstated in service. In Subhash vs. Divisional Controller, MSRTC, 2009 (IV) LLJ 411 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has declined backwages as punishment and hence, it is not relevant here. In 2009 (1) LLJ 326 . Talwara Co-operative Credit and Service Society Ltd. vs. Sushil Kumar, the Hon'ble Apex Court states that relief of reinstatement and backwages is not automatic and on facts before it, compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement was found proper. The employer society there had suffered losses of Rs. 18.95 lakhs and hence its board resolved to dispense with services of some of the employees. The termination thus effected was set aside for breach of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. In this background in paragraph 16, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted short duration of employment of respondent before it in two different spells, his not being in employment of appellant for long and employer being financially sick, and proceeded to award compensation as above over and above payments received by employee under section 17B of Industrial Disputes Act. 10. In 2008 (I) CLR 440, S. Sivraj vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Forest Corporation Ltd., the Division Bench of Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that when order under Regulation 16 deeming appellant not to be an employee for remaining absent without leave was set aside by Single Judge with direction to reinstate without backwages, grant of full backwages is not a natural consequence as order of termination was set aside due to procedural irregularity. It is to be noted that fact of absence was not in dispute. In Shrirang Marotrao Chaphale vs. Divisional Controller, MSRTC - Writ Petition No. 356/1997 decided on 19-1-2005, I found petitioner conductor entitled to reinstatement as charge of defalcation and misappropriation was not established. It is to be noted that fact of absence was not in dispute. In Shrirang Marotrao Chaphale vs. Divisional Controller, MSRTC - Writ Petition No. 356/1997 decided on 19-1-2005, I found petitioner conductor entitled to reinstatement as charge of defalcation and misappropriation was not established. But then considering the lung pendency of matter from 1985 and superannuation in 2005 itself as also his past service record which revealed punishments for same type of misconducts, he was awarded 30% backwages with continuity. In view of recent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court considered above, it is not necessary to refer to these judgments. 11. Facts here show that petitioner employer did not take corrective steps after 1990 to proceed departmentally against respondent by issuing him chargesheet. Though Deshmukh was reinstated due to Court adjudication, fact that respondent was litigating for that relief only was never seriously taken note of. Application for settlement moved by respondent for taking him back was ignored. Exact date and stage at which such proposal was initiated is not pointed out. Even his acquittal in criminal case was not given its due importance. Thus though petitioners could have salvaged the situation within time and either permitted respondent to work or then could have proved misconduct against him, they made no such efforts to save loss to public revenue. Respondent filed departmental appeal immediately and also took recourse to conciliation machinery under Industrial Disputes Act. However, after his similarly placed colleague Deshmukh got relief in ULP complaint, he also switched to that remedy in hope to succeed. The question of impact of section 59 of the MRTU & PULP Act then delayed disposal of that matter. All this history is already mentioned above by me. Full Bench of this Court in C. S. Dixit vs. Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Pune (supra) answered the controversy in respondent's favour in 2000 itself and his Writ Petition No. 2418/1995 remained pending till 2007. He made no efforts to have it decided immediately in view of that judgment. He also did not attend the Labour Court and allowed his application for condonation of delay in filing ULP complaint to be dismissed in default. In his Revision the Industrial Court Amravati on 30-8-1984 remanded matter back to the Labour Court to consider the prayer for condonation of delay on merits. He also did not attend the Labour Court and allowed his application for condonation of delay in filing ULP complaint to be dismissed in default. In his Revision the Industrial Court Amravati on 30-8-1984 remanded matter back to the Labour Court to consider the prayer for condonation of delay on merits. After the matter was so sent back for said purpose, on 22-11-2004, the said proceeding itself was again dismissed in default. Hence, respondent did not even attempt to substantiate his grounds for condoning that delay. This dismissal is also after about 20 years. Thus neither the petitioner nor the respondent have acted diligently in the matter. Respondent opted for various remedies as he thought fit and petitioner also tried to keep him out of service for alleged loss of confidence. The issue of entitlement of respondent to full backwages needs to be scrutinized in this background. Fact that respondent has discharged burden cast upon him to prove this entitlement is not in dispute before me. The only question is whether in this situation, full backwages for 23 years could have been awarded to him or not. I therefore find that in such circumstances both sides are equally at fault for not taking timely steps. Respondent is therefore held entitled to receive 50%, backwages for the period from date of his termination till his superannuation. The impugned award is accordingly modified to that extent. 12. Writ petition is thus partly allowed. Award dated 18-10-2008 delivered by the Labour Court, Buldhana in Reference IDA 4/2007 (Old No. 31/1987) is modified by directing party No. 1 i.e. petitioner to pay to him 50% backwages from 16-9-1975 till 31-7-1998. Rest of the award and directions therein are maintained as it is. Respondent is at liberty to withdraw amount deposited towards 25% backwages in this Court. Petitioner to pay him balance amount to make the total thereof to 50% within period of three months from today. If it is not so paid, that balance amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum till its realization. Rule accordingly with no orders as to costs. Petition allowed.