Order In W.P.(L) No. 3458 of 2003 the petitioner has challenged the award rendered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad whereby the Tribunal has held that the action of the Management of M/s B.C.C. Limited, Kusunda Area NO.-VI in relation to Kusunda Colliery in dismissing the concerned workman Lalmani Bind, Clerk Grade-1 w.e.f. 181 19.3.1993 is not justified. The Tribunal has further directed the management to reinstate the concerned workman with continuity of service and 50% back wages. 2. The management-writ petitioner has confined this writ petition for challenging the part of the award giving 50% of back wages. 3. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since the concerned workman has not brought any evidence on record to prove that he was not gainfully employed, learned Tribunal should not have reinstated the workman with 50% back wages. Learned counsel submitted that onus is on the workman to prove that he was not gainfully employed but he failed to discharge the said onus. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited reported in (2008)9 Supreme Court Cases 486. 4. I have heard learned counsel and perused the award. I have considered the facts and materials on record. In the impugned award, learned Tribunal found and held that the domestic inquiry, in which the concerned workman was awarded punishment of dismissal, was not fair and proper. Having held so by way of deciding preliminary issue, learned Tribunal afforded opportunity to the management to adduce evidence on merit, but the management failed to adduce any evidence. 5. Learned Tribunal proceeded with the case and rendered decision on the basis of evidence on record. He also took notice of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in FLR 1998(81) page 188 and held that there was no legal evidence and material to support the punishment awarded to the concerned workman and that the dismissal of the concerned workman from service is wholly unjustified. Learned Tribunal further did not find any evidence and material on record to suggest that the concerned workman after his dismissal was gainfully employed. 6. On the basis of material on record he thought it just and appropriate to reinstate the concerned workman with 50% of back wages. Learned Tribunal further did not find any evidence and material on record to suggest that the concerned workman after his dismissal was gainfully employed. 6. On the basis of material on record he thought it just and appropriate to reinstate the concerned workman with 50% of back wages. Though learned Tribunal has held the dismissal of the concerned workman illegal and unjustified, he has not awarded full back wages, as there was no evidence that he was not gainfully employed after his termination. 7. In W.P.(L) No. 6976 of 2002 the workman has challenged that part of the award whereby only 50% of back wages has been awarded to him. 8. It has been stated that since the dismissal has been held to be unjustified and the management failed to bring on record any evidence in support of validity of the order of dismissal, he is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. 9. In Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited (supra) the Supreme Court has held that the initial burden of proof that the workman was not gainfully employed on the workman and once the initial burden is discharged, the same is shifted on to the employer to prove that the employee concerned was, in fact, gainfully employed. 10. In the instant case it is an admitted position that there is no evidence on record to show that the concerned workman was gainfully employed or he was not employed. The concerned workman has failed to discharge its initial burden to prove that he was not gainfully employed. Since he has not discharged that burden, there was no question of shifting of the same to the employer to prove that he was not gainfully employed. However, the said judgment is not on the point that in absence of any such proof, the court/tribunal has no jurisdiction to exercise its discretion to award any wages less than the full wages. Conscious of the said decision and provision of law, as all the relevant facts bearing in the instant case, learned tribunal has rendered its award reinstating the respondent workman only with 50% of back wages. Conscious of the said decision and provision of law, as all the relevant facts bearing in the instant case, learned tribunal has rendered its award reinstating the respondent workman only with 50% of back wages. Since the concerned workman has failed to prove and bring on record any evidence or document to show that he was not gainfully employed and since there was no evidence that he was employed after the dismissal, in my view there is no error in the award of learned Tribunal allowing the concerned workman only 50% of the back wages, in• spite of holding his termination as illegal and unjustified. 11. In view of the above discussion, I find no any ground made out to interfere with the impugned award of learned Tribunal. 12. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.