JUDGMENT:- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation impugns the judgment passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, on 29.6.2010 allowing the revision filed by the respondent and reversing the order passed by the Labour Court, Yavatmal, dismissing the complaint filed by the respondent on 31.12.2008. 3. The respondent was working with the petitioner as a driver. It was the case of the Corporation that the Depot Manager, Wani, had submitted a report to the Divisional Controller on 11.3.1998 stating therein that the respondent had misbehaved with the Assistant Traffic Superintendent and abused him in filthy language. On the basis of the report submitted by Shri Ingle, a charge-sheet was issued against the respondent and a departmental inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer found that the respondent was guilty of the charge levelled against him and the punishment of dismissal was proposed. The respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 31.12.1998. A departmental appeal filed by the respondent against the order of dismissal was dismissed. The respondent then filed a complaint before the Labour Court under the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act. The respondent claimed reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back wages. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent. However, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record the Industrial Court reversed the findings recorded by the Labour Court and allowed the complaint filed by the respondent. 4. Shri Wankhede the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court ought not have allowed the revision filed by the respondent and interfered with the order passed by the Labour Court as the scope of the revisional authority was very limited. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the charge levelled against the respondent was grave and serious and it was duly proved by the Corporation and hence the Industrial Court was not justified in holding that the charge levelled against the respondent could not be said to have been proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court was not justified in granting full back wages to the respondent though the respondent had neither pleaded nor proved that he was not gainfully employed after his termination. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court was not justified in granting full back wages to the respondent though the respondent had neither pleaded nor proved that he was not gainfully employed after his termination. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions reported in 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 576 : [2009(1) ALL MR 628] (M.S.R.T.C. Chandrapur Vs. Ramabai Vijay Shende and another.), 2010 (4) Mh. L.J. 224: [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 599 (S.C.)] (Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd. Vs. Nimesh), 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 736 : [2011(2) ALL MR 309] (State of Mah. Vs. Manoj) and 2007 (2) SCC 433 (J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and another) to substantiate his submission. 5. Shri Jagdale, the learned counsel for the respondent, supported the order passed by the Industrial Court and submitted that the Industrial Court was justified in reversing the order passed by the Labour Court as the Competent Authority had not considered the documentary evidence like duty allocation register, leave register and muster register before holding that the charges levelled against the respondent were proved. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Corporation had neither examined the officer who was allegedly abused by the respondent nor had the Corporation examined any eye witness to the alleged incident. In the peculiar facts of this case, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the Industrial Court was justified in reversing the order passed by the Labour Court and directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service with full back wages. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in any case the respondent should be granted 50% back wages as has been granted by this court in the case of an employee in the judgment reported in 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 568 : (2006(1) ALL MR 513] (M.S.R.T.C. Vs. Ramesh Narayan Sanap and another). The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the judgment reported in 2000 1 CLR 73 (Hardwari Lal Vs. State of V.P. & Ors.) 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the judgments of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, it appears that the Industrial Court has rightly reversed the findings recorded by the Labour Court by holding that the charges levelled against the respondent could not have been said to be proved. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the judgments of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, it appears that the Industrial Court has rightly reversed the findings recorded by the Labour Court by holding that the charges levelled against the respondent could not have been said to be proved. The Industrial Court on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record rightly came to a conclusion that the findings recorded by the Competent Authority were not based on the evidence available on record. According to the Industrial Court, it was a case of 'no evidence' and without any documentary proof the Competent Authority had held that the respondent was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Though the alleged incident was of 9.3.1998, the Industrial Court on a perusal of the material on record observed that the respondent was not allotted any duty on 9.3.1998. The leave register placed on record shows that the respondent was on leave from 8.3.1998 to 10.3.1998. From the muster roll, it appears that from 8.3.1998 to 10.3.1998 the respondent was absent from duty. Thus, on a proper appreciation of the duty allocation chart, the leave register and the muster roll, the Industrial Court came to a conclusion that the respondent was not allotted any duty on 9.3.1998. The Industrial Court further observed that the petitioner Corporation examined only the Depot Manager who was not an eye witness to the alleged incident. The Corporation had not examined the Assistant Traffic Superintendent who was allegedly abused by the respondent Not only that, the Corporation also did not examine any eye witness to the incident. In this background, the Industrial Court rightly came to a conclusion that the Competent Authority had not considered the material documents like the duty allocation register, leave register and muster roll before holding that the respondent was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Since the findings recorded by the Competent Authority were not based on the evidence available on record, the Industrial Court set aside the order passed by the Labour Court and also the order passed by the Corporation dismissing the respondent from seivice. 7. Though the Industrial Court was justified in directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service with continuity of service, the Industrial Court was not justified in granting full back wages to the respondent. 7. Though the Industrial Court was justified in directing the reinstatement of the respondent in service with continuity of service, the Industrial Court was not justified in granting full back wages to the respondent. It is well settled position of law that back wages cannot be granted in the absence of pleading and proof in regard to the absence of gainful employment after the termination. The judgment reported in 2006(1) Mh. L.J. 568 : [2006(1)ALLMR513] and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be applied to the facts of this case. On the other hand, the judgments reported in 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 576 : [2009(1) ALL MR 628], 2010(4) Mh. L.J. 224: [2010 ALL MR (Cri) 599 (S.C.)], 2011(1) Mh.L.J. 736 : [2011(2) ALL MR 309] and 2007(2) SCC 433 and relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are squarely applicable to the case in hand and the respondent is not entitled to full back wages as he has not pleaded and proved that he was not gainfully employed after his termination. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, as it appears from the documents that the respondent was not guilty of the charges levelled against him and was wrongfully terminated, the respondent would be entitled to 20% of back wages. 8. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the Industrial Court on 29.6.2011 is modified. The order of the Industrial Court granting reinstatement to the respondent with continuity in service is confirmed. The respondent would, however, be entitled to 20% back wages only. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.