Order In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Award dated 16th January, 2004 rendered by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in Reference Case No.2 of 1997, whereby the management-petitioner has been directed to reinstate the concerned workman to the original post of Duty Incharge with• full back wages and other benefits admissible to the workman. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Award on the ground that there is no evidence or material on record in support of the claim of the workman and the Award is unfounded and perverse. The workman has not brought any evidence to prove that he was not gainfully employed after his termination, but learned labour court has also awarded full back wages and other benefits to him without any basis. 3. Mr. Deo, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the concerned workman, opposed this petition and submitted that the concerned workman was illegally demoted and subsequently terminated from his service without any rhyme or reason. The same has been established before learned labour court by legal evidences. Learned labour court has considered all relevant aspects and after due discussion of the evidences on record, has come to the finding that the workman was demoted without any just reason and was not allowed to function as 'Duty Incharge' thereafter. He was ultimately forced to leave his employment The said finding is based on the evidences and material on record and there is no illegality or perversity in the award. Learned counsel, however, fairly admitted that on behalf of the workman, there is no evidence that he was not gainfully employed after his demotion. There is no contrary evidence as well on behalf of the management. Learned labour court has found that the demotion forcing to leave the employment was without any justification and the same was contrary to the provisions of law. Learned labour court has also rightly directed for payment of pack wages and other benefits. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. I also perused the impugned Award. I find that on the point of illegal demotion, learned labour court has made elaborate discussion and considered the facts and evidences on record and has come to the finding that the workman was demoted without any justification and was forced to leave service by the management. I also perused the impugned Award. I find that on the point of illegal demotion, learned labour court has made elaborate discussion and considered the facts and evidences on record and has come to the finding that the workman was demoted without any justification and was forced to leave service by the management. The said finding is well discussed and thoroughly considered. I find no infirmity or illegality in the said finding. 5. So far as the Award of back wages is concerned, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said part of Award is based on no material on record. 6. In P.V.K. Distillery Limited vs. Mahendra Ram' reported in (2009)5 SCC 705 , the Apex Court taking note of its earlier decisions and other consideration, held that by now with the passage of time, a pragmatic view of the matter is being taken realizing 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. It has been further held that in deciding the question as to whether the employee should be recompensed with full back wages and other benefits until the date of reinstatement, the tribunals and the courts have to be realistic even on termination of service being declared invalid in law Right to full back wages is not absolute. 7. The Supreme Court dealing with the payment of back wages in 'Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Limited vs. Shamim Mirza' [ (2009)1 SCC 20 ], ruled that the entitlement of an employee to get reinstatement does not necessarily result in payment of full or partial back wages, which is independent of reinstatement. While dealing with the prayer for back wages, factual scenario, equity and good conscience and a number of other facts, like the manner of selection; the nature of appointment; the period for which the employee has worked, have to be kept in mind. 8. While dealing with the prayer for back wages, factual scenario, equity and good conscience and a number of other facts, like the manner of selection; the nature of appointment; the period for which the employee has worked, have to be kept in mind. 8. Though there is no straitjacket formula for awarding relief of back wages, it has been held by the Apex Court that an order of back wages should not be passed in a mechanical manner. Reference may be made to the decision In Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh [ (2005)5 SCC 591 ]. 9. The Supreme Court considering the trend of awarding full back wages with the award of reinstatement, held that one of the considerations should be as to whether the workman was gainfully employed after his termination. It has been further held that the primary burden is on the workman to prove that he was not gainfully employed. The burden of proof, thereafter, shifts on the management to establish that he was gainfully employed. 10. In the instant case, there is no statement of the workman that he was not gainfully employed after his termination. The management also however has not brought on record any evidence or material to show that he was gainfully employed. However, without any basis on record, learned labour court while directing reinstatement of the concerned workman, has also directed to pay full back wages with other benefits. That part of the Award for payment of back wages is not based on any cogent material on record. The same is not in consonance with the principle laid by the Supreme Court and is unsustainable. 11. However, since the management has also not been able to bring on record anything to show that he was gainfully employed or to show any other circumstances under which the workman is not even entitled for partial back wages and also that his termination has been held to be unjustified and arbitrary, I am of the view that the modification of the part of the Award with a direction of payment of 50% back wages will serve the interest of justice. 12. 12. In view of the above discussion this writ petition is disposed of by upholding the impugned Award so far as it directed for reinstatement on the original post of the concerned workman, but modifying the award with regard to payment of back wages to the extent of 50%- of back wages and other benefits as in the impugned award.