JUDGMENT :- The Petitioner - Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Solapur has challenged the impugned order dated, 10th, October, 2000 passed by the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Solapur in Reference I.D.A. No.77 of 1993, whereby the Petitioner is directed to reinstate the Respondent with continuity of service and back wages in full w.e.f. 28th July, 1992 till the date of his reinstatement. 2. This Court on 3rd June, 2002, while admitting matter recorded that the "Respondent has already been reinstated in service". The Court, therefore, declined to grant any ad-interim relief. 3. Admittedly, the Respondent has been in service since March, 2002. As Respondent's application in Complaint (ULP) No.19 of 2001 was allowed, therein directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent, this Court also refused to grant any interim relief. Another Writ Petition No.2378 of 2002, filed by the Petitioner is disposed off by a separate order. 4. Admittedly, the Respondent worked from 9th May, 1983 to 22nd September, 1985. His services were orally tem1inated on 22nd September, 1985 without following due procedure of law as contemplated under Article 25 of the I.D. Act. 5. Admittedly, the Respondent has rendered services for more than three years. The completion of more than 240 days in each year as required, also supports the case of the Respondent and also impugned order passed by the Labour Court. The Respondent is a handicapped and project affected person. There is nothing to substantiate accepting the avem1ents that the Respondent had left the services on his own. The Respondent was working purely on temporary basis on daily wages and, therefore, there was no question of giving one months notice or wages in lieu of the same as rightly held to be un-sustainable. Even otherwise, taking over all view of the matter as well as evidence brought on record and in view of the admitted position from the record, I see there is no reason to interfere with the facts on the record that the Respondent has proved that his services were terminated illegally. There is no perversity. The reasons so provided are based upon the documents and the material placed on record. 6. The Respondent, therefore, having worked for more than three years has right of permanent employee as available in law. 7. There is no perversity. The reasons so provided are based upon the documents and the material placed on record. 6. The Respondent, therefore, having worked for more than three years has right of permanent employee as available in law. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has strongly relied on the following Judgments: (i) Kanailal Bera v/s. Union of India and Others, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 517 . (ii) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v/s. S. C. Sharma, reported in 2005(2) SCC 363 : 2005(1) Supreme 211 : 2005 AIR (SC) 768 : 2005(1) Scale 317 : 2005 (1) JT 336 . (iii) General Manager, Haryana Roadways v/s. Rudhan Singh, reported in 2005 (4) Supreme 726 : 2005 (6) JT 137 : 2005 (5) Scale 433 : 2005 (5) SCC 591 : 2005 AIR(SC)3966. (iv) Jagbir Singh v/s. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, reported in 2009 AIR (SCW)4824 : 2009 (9) JT 396 : 2009 (15) SCC 327 : 2009 (5) Supreme 629 : 2009 AIR (SC) 3004. All the facts are distinct and distinguishable. On principles of settled law, no further discussion is needed. 8. Admittedly, it is contended that the Respondent in any way is not entitled for the back wages, basically for the reasons that though his services were terminated in the year 1985; he approached the Court after more than seven years. The learned Labour Court, therefore, granted back wages in full w.e.f. 28th July, 1992 till the date of his reinstatement. 9. Considering the admitted position on record and as rightly recorded by the learned Judge and also in view of the fact that the Respondent is handicapped and project affected person and has been working for long, I see there is no case made out to interfere with the order of reinstatement and for continuity of the service. 10. So far as back wages in full in question is concerned, I realized that admittedly Respondent did not work since 22nd September, 1985 till the date of reinstatement i.e. March, 2002. It appears that for whatever may be reasons, he has not rendered his services. 10. So far as back wages in full in question is concerned, I realized that admittedly Respondent did not work since 22nd September, 1985 till the date of reinstatement i.e. March, 2002. It appears that for whatever may be reasons, he has not rendered his services. On the principle of "no work no pay" and, considering the facts and circumstances and in case where Court's came to a conclusion that the termination was illegal, improper and contrary to the provisions of law, I am not inclined to observe that in such case also, the Court should not grant any back wages. It is necessary for the Court to consider the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case as noted above; the citations are supporting the Respondent as well that:- (a) he worked for more than 240 days; (b) no notice and/or procedure was followed; (c) the termination held to be illegal; (d) the reasonable compensation cannot be denied. 11. Admittedly, as recorded above, Petitioner is disabled and project affected person. In the complaint, though very averments are made; i.e. he is unable to earn and run the family and also no one else working in any government department and therefore, family were suffering because of the poor condition; and he has no source of income, yet these averments have never been challenged and/or remained unchallenged, are sufficient to defend the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that there was no evidence or material placed on record that he was without job and was not earning anything during this period. These averments as are not denied, the observation that the burden lies upon the Respondent to prove the same is not correct. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the averments made that he was not earning during this period, as he was out of job during this period. It is well settled and it is necessary to consider the facts and circumstances of each case before granting back wages; a case is made out to modify the order and direct the Petitioner to pay 50% back wages. I am inclined to reduce 50% also for the reasons that admittedly, the Respondent never rendered services during this period with the Petitioner. The reduction to 50% back wages in my opinion is proper and reasonable compensation. 12. I am inclined to reduce 50% also for the reasons that admittedly, the Respondent never rendered services during this period with the Petitioner. The reduction to 50% back wages in my opinion is proper and reasonable compensation. 12. Admittedly, the Respondent has not challenged any order so far as grant of back wages w.e.f. 28th July, 1992, though his services were terminated on 28th September, 1985. 13. The Petition is partly allowed. In so far as back wages is concerned, 1 am inclined to reduce the 50% back wages w.e.f. 28th July, 1992 till the date of reinstatement. 14. Writ Petition is disposed off. No costs. Petition partly allowed.