Judgment K.C.Sharma, Chairman, J. ( 1. ) This order shall also govern the disposal of FA No. 271/2008 (P.N. Maheswari v. M.P. Rajya Sahakari BankMydt. and another), which is preferred against the same order by the respondent. ( 2. ) The appeal u/s 78 (1) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1950 (for short, the Act) has been preferred against the order of Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bhopal (HQ) passed in Dispute No. 64 (55)/233/2006 dated 29.11.2008. ( 3. ) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was posted in District Central Co-operative Bank, Shivpuri in the year 1997 as a cadre Manager. During that period he executed the payment of a large amount in respect of purchases done for the pesticides called laso illegally. He was thereafter placed under suspension on 21/7/1997. Charge sheet was issued against him on 25/7/1997 and an Inquiry Officer appointed, who after instituting a formal departmental enquiry submitted a report. Last show cause notice to the respondent was issued on 28/7/1997. He was given an opportunity of personal appearance on 12/3/1998. On 24/3/1998 he was heard personally by the competent authority and on 8/7/1998 he was removed from the service by way of punishment by the appellant Bank. The order of termination was served upon the respondent on 23/7/1998. However, he only filed a dispute u/s. 55 (2) before the Additional Registrar Co-operative Socieites, Bhopal dt. 21/4/1999. This according to the appellant was hopelessly barred by limitation as it was presented after an expiry of eight months as against the thirty days which is the prescribed limitation under the law for a service dispute to be filed before a competent authority. The Joint Registrar (H.Q.) however through the impugned order without discussing this point has set aside the order of the appellant Bank dated 18.7.1998 on the points of merit without awarding any back-wages to him. The cross appeal filed by the respondent is in respect of the backwages as according to it, the respondent deserves to be awarded full backwages as he has been illegally and wrongfully victimized for an act he was at all not responsible. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the appellant Shri P.R. Khirvadkar, namely argued on the point of limitation. The cross appeal filed by the respondent is in respect of the backwages as according to it, the respondent deserves to be awarded full backwages as he has been illegally and wrongfully victimized for an act he was at all not responsible. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the appellant Shri P.R. Khirvadkar, namely argued on the point of limitation. He submitted that although the respondent wrongfully presented a dispute before Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Shivpuri,but as held in 2004 RN 177, District Development v. Masurkar passed by Honble High Court a dispute pertaining to an apex level institution must be submitted before the Registrar or the Additional or Joint Registrar working in the Headquarters. Since the original dispute filed before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Shivpuri was presented before a wrongful Forum and the same was not withdrawn as per the procedure laid down under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, the later dispute filed before the Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies, (HQ) on 21.4.1999 is hopelessly barred by limitation. The counsel in this respect placed his reliance on Tribunals order passed in Syed Zaleel Akhtar v. LDB Bhoomi Vikar Bank in FA No. 120/08 dated 18.3.2009. Thus, according to him the order of the learned Joint Registrar Headquarter deserves to be set aside on the sole ground. ( 5. ) Learned counsel for the respondent Shri SanjayBajpai submitted that the original dispute was obviously submitted before the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Shivpuri, but it was submitted within time on 5.8.1998. Since the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Shivpuri did not enjoy powers to hear this case an application before the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies Gwalior was presented on 6.8.1998 to transfer the case to the competent authority. Joint Registrar through his order dated 7.9.1998 dismissed the application of the respondent. Writ petition No. 391/1999 accordingly preferred before Honble High Court, Bench at Gwalior to direct the Court to return the plaint to the petitioner to file it before the competent Court for disposal according to the law. Honble High Court in its order dated 5.4.1999 directed the Joint Registrar to consider the scope of provision of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC of the Civil Procedure Code and return the plaint to the petitioner for presentation before the proper Court. Honble High Court in its order dated 5.4.1999 directed the Joint Registrar to consider the scope of provision of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC of the Civil Procedure Code and return the plaint to the petitioner for presentation before the proper Court. In compliance of the order of the Honble High Court, the Joint Registrar vide letter dated 15.4.1999 returned the original plaint to the respondent which was subsequently filed before Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies (HQ) on 21.4.1999. Thus, the counsel contended that the service dispute has been presented well within limitation as per directions of Honble High Court and the ground agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. We find that obviously there is the High Courts order passed in WP No. 391/99 which well equips the respondent to approach the Registrar and the respondent has accordingly presented the dispute before Additional Registrar within time. Thus, there is no ground available for the appellant Bank to assail the impugned order. We thus pass on to the points raised by the learned counsel for the respondent in the cross appeal. ( 6. ) Learned counsel Shri Sanjay Bajpai submitted that the appeal filed by the respondent has been filed solely on the point of back wages. The respondent was at all not responsible for the payment made in respect of purchase of laso pesticides as the order in respect of its purchases were made earlier to his posting by other higher authorities. Even the payment of it was sanctioned by the Chairman and the predecessor Manager of the Bank. Respondent was left with no option except to make the payment as it was sanctioned by the competent authority. The counsel also submitted that even the Economic Officer Wing of the State enquired into this matter and according to its report dated 31.8.2001, the respondent was found not guilty for it. The counsel also submitted that in the first enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer against the respondent, the respondent was at all not found guilty. However, since the same was not accepted by the Chariman of the Bank at that time and on the ground that there should be a report to suit to the expectation of the authority another report was prepared and submitted which being biased and illegal cannot make a basis for penalization of the respondent. However, since the same was not accepted by the Chariman of the Bank at that time and on the ground that there should be a report to suit to the expectation of the authority another report was prepared and submitted which being biased and illegal cannot make a basis for penalization of the respondent. The counsel placed his reliance in this respect of following judgments and urged that the respondent deserves full back-wages as he was totally innocent and has been victimized for no fault of his:- i) Passed by M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal in Revision No. 200/ 2001 dated 30.11.2001 (Ramjilal v. Morena Mandal, Sahakari Shakkar, Khargone Mydt. Bhopal) ii) Dashrath Singh v. Managing Director M.P. State Co-op. Oilseed Growers Federation Ltd. and others, 2004 RN 131 ( 7. ) We find that the learned Joint Registrar (HQ) has gone into the merits of the case and has found that at the time of the purchase of laso pesticides the .respondent was not holding the post of the Manager, it was the decision of the then Chairman and the Manager, who had effected the purchase of laso so admitted by the witnesses of the appellant Bank Shri R.R. Dhavukheda on 25.4.2008. Even the Enquiry Officer in his report had stated that the then Manager Shri S .N. Gupta was virtually resposible for purchasing chemicals from MP Agro Industries of Rs. 27.78 lacs. The learned Joint Registrar has also well recorded in his order that the purchases in the Districts are carried out at the instance of the Co-ordination Committee constituted for the purpose of Govt, officials from Agricultural and Co-opertion Department. ( 8. ) We find that as observed by lower Courts there is hardly any interference on the point of merit required except reconsidering the award of back wages which we find to be necessary on the ground of the merit of the case. Although the learned lower Court has left over this issue for the appellant Bank to take a view on above grounds we consider it to be a fit case for awarding back wages to the respondent since he was not responsible for the act he has been wrongfully victimized by the appellant employer. Although the learned lower Court has left over this issue for the appellant Bank to take a view on above grounds we consider it to be a fit case for awarding back wages to the respondent since he was not responsible for the act he has been wrongfully victimized by the appellant employer. There are no hard and fast principles governing the award of back wages except this that once the merit of the case goes in favour of the employee the Court can have a considered opinion. We therefore find it to be a fit case for awarding backwages. ( 9. ) In recent judgment Honble Supreme Court in Secretary, Akola Taluka Education Society and another v. Shivaji and others, 2007 (3) Supreme 668 is pleased to observe as under :- "The Tribunal, however, in our opinion ought not to have granted full back-wages. Full back-wages, as is well-known, should not be directed to be granted only because it would be lawful to do so. Before such an order is passed, a judicial or a quasi judicial authority must consider all aspect of the matter." ( 10. ) In United Bank of India v. Sidhartha Chakraborty, 2007 (6) Supreme 3 , Honble Supreme Court is pleased to make reference to judgment passed in PGI of Medical Institution and Research Chandigarh v. Rajkumar, JT 2001 (1) SC 336, wherein it is observed as under :- "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 straitjacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of backwages in its entirety." ( 11. ) In Up State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and another v. UdayNarain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 , Honble Supreme Court is pleased to observed as under :- "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." ( 12. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It would, however, not be correct to contend that it is automatic." ( 12. ) In Datia Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Prabhudayal Dwivedi and others, 1994 RN 269 (HC), Honble High Court has observed as under:- "From the review 6f all cases mentioned, it appears that no hard and fast rule can be laid down that in which case back wages should be allowed or in which case halfback wages should be allowed or in which case total back wages should be denied." ( 13. ) In Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan reported in (2009) 2 SCC (L and S) 719, Honble Apex Court held further as under :- "In the seventies and eighties, the directions for reinstatment and the payment of full backwages on dismissal order having been found invalid would ordinarily follow as a matter of course. But there is change in the legal approach now. In the recent past there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has consistently taken the view that the relief of reinstatment with back wages is not automatic and maybe wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is held to be in contravention of the prescribed procedure." ( 14. ) The question before us drawing our attention is also this that whether the respondent was in gainful employement or not. Although this point has neither been agitated by the appellant nor pushed up by respondent which only leaves us to accept that since the same has not been opposed we can fairly well conclude that there is no case of the respondent having been in any gainful employment. We are also not left open to consider in absence of above whether the appellant has any financial crises for making any payment to the respondent in respect of back wages. ( 15. ) In one more important decision passed by Honble apex Court reported in 2009 (7) Supreme 645 , Raun Chatterjee and Surinder Singh Nijjar has observed as follows:- "In our opinion the High Court was unjustified in awarding full back wages. We are also of the opinion that the Labour Court having found the termination to be illegal was unjustified in not granting any back wages at all. We are also of the opinion that the Labour Court having found the termination to be illegal was unjustified in not granting any back wages at all. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we directed that the respondent shall be paid 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of termination of service till reinstatement." ( 16. ) The case in hand being quite indentical, the guidance available from this land mark judgment of the apex Court, the cross appeal fied by the respondent FA No. 271/2008 (RN. Maheshwari v. M.P. Rajya Sahakari Bank My dt. and another) is therefore, allowed and we hereby modify the order of the lower Court and direct the appellant Bank to pay 50% of the back wages to the respondent from the date of his termination till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation. Parties to bear their own costs.