Judgment Narendra Nath Tiwari By order dated 15.12.1999, this writ application was admitted after passing the order of reinstatement of respondent no.2 only for hearing on the point of back wages. It was observed that payment of back wages would depend on the result of this application. 2. In view of the above, the petitioner has confined his argument only to the extent of the order of payment of back wages, as the concerned workman has already been reinstated. 3. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that even if the order of petitioner's termination is set aside and he has been reinstated, he is not entitled to get full back wages. There are no reason for grant of the same. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has awarded full back wage to the concerned workman without recording any reason whatsoever. Learned counsel submitted that the concerned workman has not brought anything on record to show that the respondent no.2 was not gainfully employed during the period he was terminated, to the date he was reinstated. He further submitted that it does not automatically follow that if termination is set aside and the workman is reinstated, he is entitled to get full back wages. 4. Learned counsel referred to and relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Reetu Marbles Vrs. Prabha Kant shukla, reported in (2010)2 SCC 70 and submitted that the Apex Court has held that payment of full back wages upon termination being declared illegal cannot be granted mechanically. It does not automatically follow that reinstatement must be accompanied by payment of full back wages for the period when workman remained out of service and contributed little or nothing to the industry. 5. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-workman, though supported the Award, has not disputed the said contentions of the petitioner and the said decision of the Supreme Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel and considered their submissions and facts and material on record. In the case in hand, the workman was terminated from service on 8.11.1993. Learned labour court passed the order setting aside the order of termination on 11.3.1998. Admittedly, there is no material on record to show that the respondent no.2 was sitting idle and was not gainfully employed. It is also admitted that he had not contributed anything to the petitioner's industry. Learned labour court passed the order setting aside the order of termination on 11.3.1998. Admittedly, there is no material on record to show that the respondent no.2 was sitting idle and was not gainfully employed. It is also admitted that he had not contributed anything to the petitioner's industry. On the other hand, the Management-petitioner has also not brought anything on record to substantiate that the respondent no.2 was gainfully employed during the said period. 7. In the said situation, it would be in the interest of justice if the order of full back wages passed by the labour court is modified to the extent of payment of 50% of the back wages. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed by modifying the impugned Award/ order to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to get only 50% of back wages instead of full back wages as awarded by the court below. The petitioner is directed to calculate the wages of the concerned workman @ 50% of his wages and pay the same, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.