JUDGMENT : K.S Jhaveri, J. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant- petitioner has challenged the Judgement and order dated 07.03.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3975 of 2001 whereby the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was partly allowed. 2.0 The short facts of the case are that the respondent -workman was working with the appellant-Corporation as Vehicle Examiner. He was in the habit of remaining absent unauthorizedly for which in past suitable punishments were imposed on him and he was given chance to improve. Inspite of that, the respondent remained absent unauthorizedly for the period from 09.10.1992 to 10.12.1992 causing inconvenience to the appellant- Corporation. After holding departmental inquiry and as the misconduct alleged against the respondent was proved, he was dismissed by order dated 17.12.1992. The departmental appeal was filed by the respondent which was not accepted as the same was time barred and it was intimated to the respondent by letter dated 30.06.1993. The respondent approached the Labour Court, Vadodara by way of Reference No. 980 of 1993. The Labour Court by judgement and award dated 16.10.2000 allowed the reference and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent on his original post with 100% backwages with continuity of service and all consequential and incidental benefits within 30 days from the date of the publication of the award with cost of Rs. 1000/-. 2.1 The judgement and order passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the appellant- Corporation before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 3975 of 2001 whereby vide judgement and order dated 07.03.2002, the petition was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge by modifying the award of the Labour Court in respect of backwages to the extent that instead of full backwages, the workman is entitled for 50% backwages for the intervening period. The rest of the award was not disturbed. 3.0 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and award passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. The rest of the award was not disturbed. 3.0 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and award passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant- Corporation contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have examined while considering the aspect of backwages that the respondent workman was dismissed on 19.10.1992 and he raised the dispute before the Labour Court after a period of 9 months from the date of the dismissal order and matter was pending before the Labour Court for about seven years. He further contended that there was no fault on the part of the appellant- Corporation and the aspect of backwages is required to be examined that the appellant- Corporation is public body and it cannot be made liable to grant backawages for no fault. 5.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant- Corporation further submitted that 50% backwages granted by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the findings of learned Single Judge. The Labour Court has not given any findings or reasoning regarding granting 100% backwages to the respondent-workman. He further contended that the appellant-petitioner which is a public body has been saddled with such heavy burden of back wages in absence of the evidence. There are no findings by the Labour Court regarding 100% backwages and the appellant-Corporation being public body should no be saddled with heavy burden of backwages. 6.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant further contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in not appreciating the fact that in the departmental inquiry all the papers on record were produced and the Court ought not to have relied upon the deposition of the hostile witnesses of the Corporation to hold that no inquiry was held. 7.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant- Corporation further contended that learned Single Judge has erred in granting backwages to the extent of 50% when there was no deposition on the part of the workman that at the intervening period he was unemployed. 7.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant- Corporation further contended that learned Single Judge has erred in granting backwages to the extent of 50% when there was no deposition on the part of the workman that at the intervening period he was unemployed. It is further submitted that unless and until a statement is made before the Labour Court that he was unemployed and in spite of his best efforts to seek employment he could not get employment, there is no question of burden on the part of the appellant to prove otherwise and hence in view of the aforesaid facts backwages ought not to have been granted to the respondent- workman. 8.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has supported the judgement and order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the learned Single Judge has tried to balance between the parties and thereby has rightly granted 50% backwages to the respondent-workman. He submitted that the appeal may be dismissed. 9.0 We have heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. As regards the question of reinstatement is concerned, we are in complete agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge and also the Labour Court. 10.0 As regards backwages is concerned, while considering the same, the learned Single Judge held that there is no evidence led by the appellant proving the charge levelled against the workman before the Labour Court and at the same time also held that the respondent workman has not proved the unemployment. Inspite of this, 50% backwages were granted. Nothing is on record to establish that the workman has led any evidence with regard to unemployment. Further, there was no deposition on the part of the workman that at the intervening period he was unemployed. Unless and until a statement is made before the Labour Court that he was unemployed and in spite of his best efforts to seek employment he could not get employment, the burden is not on the part of the appellant to prove otherwise and hence in view of the aforesaid facts backwages ought not to have been granted to the respondent- workman. It is evident that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated this while granting 50% backwages. It is evident that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated this while granting 50% backwages. In view of the above, the order of the learned Single Judge in respect of granting 50 % backwages is required to be quashed and set aside and the same is quashed and set aside accordingly. The rest of the order is not disturbed. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.