JUDGMENT : SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Vikas Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Om Prakash Saxena, respondent no. 2, in person. 2. The petitioner through the present writ petition has assailed the impugned award dated 29.08.2017 (notified by Govt. Order No. 715 dated 29.08.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 173 of 2002. 3. Respondent no. 2 Om Prakash Saxena, was appointed as a Bus Conductor in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSRTC’). Respondent no. 2 on 25.08.1995 was on duty on Bus No. UHN-2741 on Meerut-Sardhana Route. It appears that while the Bus was on the way, a surprise checking on the Bus was conducted by the Regional Checking Squad, Meerut, headed by Sri Ramesh Chandra, Traffic Superintendent, who found that certain corrupt practices had been adopted by respondent no. 2 in the distribution of tickets. He submitted a report to the Regional Manager, Regional Officer Meerut, disclosing the corrupt practices adopted by respondent no. 2 thereby causing the loss to the UPSRTC and misbehaviour and obstruction by respondent no. 2 with the checking squad. 4. The Regional Manager, Meerut, who is the Disciplinary Authority, by letter No. 833, dated 14.02.1996 issued a charge sheet to respondent no. 2 based on the report dated 28.08.1995. Later on, certain correction was made by letter No. 2248 dated 09.05.1996 in the charge sheet dated 14.02.1996 whereby denial of the signature on the waybill was inserted in the charge-sheet to remove the clerical mistake, which was served upon respondent no. 2 and duly received by him on 13.05.1996. 5. There are seven charges in the charge sheet dated 14.02.1996. The charges against the respondent no. 2 and duly received by him on 13.05.1996. 5. There are seven charges in the charge sheet dated 14.02.1996. The charges against the respondent no. 2 are reproduced herein-below: ^^1- fnukad 25-08-1995 dks cl la[;k ;wŒ,pŒ,uŒ 2701 esa esjB ls lj/kuk ekxZ ij M~;wVh djrs gq;s fdjk;k ysus ds mijkUr 8 ;kf=;ksa ds de nwjh ds fVdV cukuk vkSj bu fVdVksa dks forfjr u dj viuh tsc esa j[kukA 2- fVdV la[;k 3920788 dh ewy Áfr esa esjB ls ukuw] ;k=h Áfr esa esjB lj/kuk dks N% ;kf=;ksa dks n'kkZdj tkylkth djukA blh Ádkj fVdV la[;k 3970796 f}rh; Áfr] dksjh j[kdj ;kf=;ksa dks nks ;k=h ds lkewfgd fVdV nsuk vkSj foHkkx ,oa ;kf=;ksa dks /kks[kk nsukA 3- ekxZi= esa lkroh iafDr esa :i;s 12@& dks :i;s 10@& n'kkZdj :i;s 2@& gM+i djukA mijksDr Ádj.k ls foHkkx dks gkfu igqapkuk rFkk xEHkhj Hkz"Vpkj esa fyIr jgukA 4- fujh{k.k vf/kdkfj;ksa dks viuk dS'k u pSd djus nsuk rFkk vHkærk dk O;ogkj o ?kksj vuq'kklughurk djukA 5- fuxe O;olk; esa diV ,oa csbZekuh djukA 6- viuk dk;Z fu"BkiwoZd lEikfnr u djukA 7- mRrj Áns'k jkT; lM+d ifjogu fuxe deZpkjh lsok fu;ekoyh ¼vf/kdkfj;ksa ls fHkUu½ 1981 dh /kkjk&61 esa of.kZr vkpj.k ds Áfr dk;Z djus rFkk /kkjk&62 ds vuqPNsn 1] 5] 9] 20 ,oa 21 esa of.kZr vopkj esa fyIr jgukA** 6. Respondent no. 2 submitted an explanation on 24.02.1996 in response to the charge sheet dated 14.02.1996 denying the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority considered the explanation submitted by the respondent no. 2 and found that an enquiry as per law is to be conducted to find out the truth in the allegations. Accordingly, he nominated Sri O.P. Karnwal as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 07.03.1996. Sri O.P. Karnwal conducted the enquiry, but he did not complete the enquiry. Thereafter, one Sri Manoj Kumar, Assistant Regional Manager, Meerut, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. As per the record, the substantial enquiry was conducted by Sri O.P. Karnwal before Sri Manoj Kumar took over the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry found the charges against respondent no. 2 proved and submitted the enquiry report dated 10.08.1998 to the disciplinary authority. 7. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, issued a show cause notice to respondent no. 2 by letter no. 3250 dated 01.12.1998 enclosing the enquiry report and asked respondent no. 2 to submit his objection, if any, against the enquiry report. 8. 2 proved and submitted the enquiry report dated 10.08.1998 to the disciplinary authority. 7. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, issued a show cause notice to respondent no. 2 by letter no. 3250 dated 01.12.1998 enclosing the enquiry report and asked respondent no. 2 to submit his objection, if any, against the enquiry report. 8. Respondent no. 2 in reply to the said show cause notice, submitted a detailed reply on 11.01.1999 in which he categorically stated that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Enquiry Officer. Besides the above plea, he has pointed out several defects in his reply in conducting the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. 9. The disciplinary authority found the charges against respondent no. 2 proved. The disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment on 11.06.1999 terminating the service of respondent no. 2. 10. Respondent no. 2, thereafter, preferred a departmental appeal on 25.06.1999 before the appellate authority/Divisional General Manager, UPSRTC, Meerut, who vide order dated 04.07.2000 rejected the appeal. 11. After the rejection of the appeal, respondent no. 2 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court and registered as Case No. 173 of 2002. The Labour Court by order dated 12.08.2010 passed an award against respondent no. 2, which came to be challenged by respondent no. 2 before this Court by filing Writ (C) No. 24345 of 2011 (Om Prakash Saxena vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and Others). 12. This Court by the judgment and order dated 09.02.2016 allowed the said writ petition and quashed the impugned award dated 12.08.2010 and remanded the matter to the Labour Court to consider afresh in the light of the evidence on record. The relevant extract of the judgment dated 09.02.2016 is reproduced herein-below: “The perusal of the award reveals that the finding with regard to 8 passengers travelling to Meerut to Sardhana who were issued tickets for shorter journey from Nanu to Sardhana is without the consideration of the statement of the PW-1 wherein he clearly stated that of the aforesaid 8 passengers, 6 of them had asked for ticket from Meerut to Nanu and then had requested for extending the journey from Nanu to Sardhana whereas one passenger had asked for ticket from Shantinagar to Nanu and then Nanu to Sardhana and one another from Nanu to Sardhana only. The tickets were issued to them accordingly from Meerut to Nanu, Shantinagar to Nanu and then from Nanu to Sardhana. None of them journeyed in the Bus for any distance without ticket. Needless to say that the Bus Conductor is supposed to issue tickets to the passengers as demanded and that there is no prohibition in issuing tickets in two parts of the journey particularly when the passengers initially demands tickets for a shorter journey and then for extended journey. The Labour Court has not dealt with the above aspect of the matter and failed to find out if these passengers were issued separate tickets in two parts of the journey from Meerut to Nanu and then from Nanu to Sardhana as contended by the petitioner. It has only gone by the fact that they were issued tickets from Nanu to Sardhana without caring to find to if the record revealed issuance of tickets to them from Meerut to Nanu or Shantinagar to Nanu also in which case they would be having tickets for the full journey from Meerut to Sardhana. In regard to the entry of Rs. 12/- which was converted into Rs. 10/- the explanation and the statement of the petitioner was that 5 passengers were shown travelling from Shantinagar to Dabatwa and were charged @ Rs. 2/- a total of Rs. 10/- and this was mentioned in the 7th line of column 1 and 2 of the Marg Patra whereas one another passenger was shown as travelling from Shantinagar to Dabatwa in line 8 column 1 and 2 in this way the total passengers travelling from Shantinagar to Dabatwa remained 6 and a sum of Rs. 10/- plus Rs. 2/- was shown to have realised. There was no manipulation of the entry of Rs. 12/- to Rs. 10/- so as to cause any loss to the roadways. This statement of the petitioner was not controverted by any piece of the evidence but the Labour Court failed to take it into account and returned the finding only on the basis of the record of the enquiry. It is well settled that any finding which is recorded without consideration of the material evidence is nothing but perverse. The statement of the petitioner recorded before the Labour Court was a material piece of evidence vis-a-vis the charges levelled against him. It is well settled that any finding which is recorded without consideration of the material evidence is nothing but perverse. The statement of the petitioner recorded before the Labour Court was a material piece of evidence vis-a-vis the charges levelled against him. The non-consideration of the said statement or the explanation given by the petitioner therein regarding the charges levelled against him vitiates the entire award. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 12.08.2010 is hereby quashed and the Labour Court is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the evidence on record especially in relation to the above two aspects of the matter. The writ petition is allowed as above.” 13. After the matter was remanded, the Labour Court passed an award dated 29.08.2017, published on 11.10.2017, which has been assailed by the UPSRTC in the present writ petition. 14. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vikas Sahai, has raised threefold submissions; that the finding of the Labour Court that the punishment order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice is perverse and erroneous inasmuch as it is manifest from the record that ample opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent no. 2 by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry, and as such, the finding of the Labour Court holding the enquiry vitiated on the ground of non-compliance of the principle of natural justice is not sustainable in law. Secondly, he submits that the UPSRTC in para-16 of the written statement has categorically stated that the Labour Court has not allowed the petitioner to lead further evidence which establishes that the charges against respondent no. 2 are true and correct. It is submitted that it is settled in law that if there are some shortcomings in the enquiry, the employer can demonstrate by leading cogent evidence before the Labour Court that the charges against respondent no. 2 are proved. In support of the said contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Kurukshetra University vs. Prithvi Singh, (2018) 4 SCC 483 . 15. Thirdly, he submits that the Labour Court is under obligation to record reasons before granting full back wages, whereas in the instant case, respondent no. 2 has not demonstrated that he was not gainfully employed, thus, the Labour Court has erred in awarding full back wages. 15. Thirdly, he submits that the Labour Court is under obligation to record reasons before granting full back wages, whereas in the instant case, respondent no. 2 has not demonstrated that he was not gainfully employed, thus, the Labour Court has erred in awarding full back wages. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the two judgments of the Apex Court reported in Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. S. Viswanathan, (2005) 3 SCC 193 and Hindustan Motors Ltd. vs. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Another, (2002) 6 SCC 41 . 16. Per contra, respondent no. 2, who appeared in person, has submitted that a detailed finding has been returned by the Labour Court that enquiry is vitiated for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice. He submits that the Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that after the change of enquiry officer, the petitioner demanded the cross-examination of the departmental witnesses and on the request of the petitioner, several dates were fixed by the Enquiry Officer, but the departmental witnesses did not appear and the Enquiry Officer had proceeded with the enquiry. It is submitted that in the facts of the case, it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to ensure the presence of the departmental witnesses so that he could have cross-examined them and truth would have come out in the cross-examination of the departmental witness as regards the veracity of the charges levelled against the respondent no. 2. It is submitted that in absence of proper opportunity to the respondent no. 2 to cross-examine the departmental witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has acted illegally in relying upon the departmental witnesses to hold that the charges against him are proved. He submits that learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate from the record any perversity in the finding of the Labour Court. 17. He submits that the Labour Court has further recorded a categorical finding that perusal of the statement of Sri Subhash Chandra, Assistant Traffic Inspector discloses that the statement given by him is based on surmises and conjectures and is not supported by any material on record and the learned counsel for the petitioner also could not demonstrate from the record that the said finding of the Labour Court is perverse. 18. 18. He further submits that none of the passengers who were alleged to have been travelling without proper tickets were produced to prove the charge against respondent no. 2 and in such view of the fact, the inquiry is vitiated. It is contended that as the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any perversity in the finding of the Labour Court, thus, the finding of the Labour Court being a finding of fact does not call for any interference by this Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Regarding the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submits that a wrong statement has been made before the Court that an application has been submitted by the petitioner before the Labour Court to produce the documents which proved the charges against the respondent no. 2. He submits that neither any application nor any document had been produced by the petitioner before the Labour Court which could prove the charge against the respondent no. 2. Thus, he submits that this ground in the absence of any material on record is not sustainable. 20. In respect to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the back wages, he submits that in para-22 of his written statement, it has been categorically stated that despite his best efforts he could not get any employment and he is unemployed to date. He submits that the aforesaid fact has again been reiterated by him in Para-7 of his reply to the objection dated 22.10.2022 of the petitioner. He further submits that he has stated before the Labour Court in his statement on oath that despite his best effort he could not get any employment and he is not employed anywhere since the date of his termination till date. 21. He further submits that the petitioner in reply to the specific case of respondent no. 2 that he has not been gainfully employed since the date of termination till date did not lead any evidence to demonstrate that he has been gainfully employed after termination. 21. He further submits that the petitioner in reply to the specific case of respondent no. 2 that he has not been gainfully employed since the date of termination till date did not lead any evidence to demonstrate that he has been gainfully employed after termination. He submits that it is settled in law that once an employee has categorically stated in his written statement as well as in his statement before the Labour Court that he has not been employed from the date of termination till the date of the award, the onus is upon the employer to demonstrate that he was gainfully employed and once such onus is discharged by the employer, the burden will shift upon the employee to demonstrate that he has not been gainfully employed. 22. He further submits that the departmental witnesses in their statements before the Labour Court have not stated that respondent no. 2 has been gainfully employed after termination. Thus, he submits that even if the Labour Court has not given any reason in concluding that he is entitled to full back wages, this Court may consider this aspect of the matter in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since there was enough material on record which establishes that he has not been gainfully employed after termination. In support of this argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhuvanesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. 2014 (142) FLR 20 (SC). Accordingly, it is contended that the writ petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 23. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no. 2 in person and perused the record. 24. The facts which emerge from the record, it is evident that seven charges were leveled against respondent no. 2 which have been extracted above. Respondent no. 2 denied the charges levelled against him. Consequently, disciplinary authority vide order dated 07.03.1996 appointed Sri O.P. Karnwal as Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry and recorded the testimony of the departmental witnesses. However, later on, he withdrew from the enquiry and Sri Manoj Kumar was nominated as the new Enquiry Officer. 25. After the nomination of the new Enquiry Officer, the petitioner submitted an application before him for further cross-examination of the departmental witnesses. However, later on, he withdrew from the enquiry and Sri Manoj Kumar was nominated as the new Enquiry Officer. 25. After the nomination of the new Enquiry Officer, the petitioner submitted an application before him for further cross-examination of the departmental witnesses. On the application of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer fixed 19.12.1996, 19.02.1997, 15.05.1997, and 24.10.1997 for cross-examination of Department Witnesses. Respondent no. 2 was present on all the dates, but Departmental witnesses did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer fixed 10.08.1998 as the last date and summoned respondent no. 2 and the petitioner's Officers who submitted the report, but despite summon, the concerned Officer did not appear. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 gave his statement before the Enquiry Officer denying the charges levelled against him and requested for his reinstatement along with back wages. 26. The Labour Court considered in detail aforesaid facts and held that as respondent no. 2 demanded cross-examination of the departmental witnesses, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to ensure the presence of the departmental witnesses to enable respondent no. 2 to cross-examine them, so that the principle of natural justice may be complied with. 27. The Labour Court found that as the Enquiry Officer did not ensure the presence of departmental witnesses and respondent no. 2 has been denied the opportunity to cross- examine them, therefore, there was a violation of the principle of natural justice and the enquiry was vitiated on this ground. The Labour Court further held that Sri Subhash Chandra, Assistant Traffic Inspector in his cross-examination made the following statement: ^^ukuw ij tks ;k=h mrjk gksxk mlls ;k=h fVdV ysdj lj/kuk okys ;k=h dks ns fn;k x;k gksxkA ;gh n'kk la[;k 88 ds ;k=h dh Hkh jgh gksxhA** 28. The Labour Court further held that Sri Subhash Chandra, Assistant Traffic Inspector in his cross-examination made the following statement: ^^ukuw ij tks ;k=h mrjk gksxk mlls ;k=h fVdV ysdj lj/kuk okys ;k=h dks ns fn;k x;k gksxkA ;gh n'kk la[;k 88 ds ;k=h dh Hkh jgh gksxhA** 28. Similarly, Sri Vinod Kumar, Assistant Traffic Inspector made the following statement before the Labour Court, which reads: ^^vkjksih us Á'u fd;k fd ;fn fVdV la[;k 788 vkSj 797 ;kf=;ksa ds ikl ik;s x;s Fks rks muds fVdV /kkjh ukuw esa gh D;ksa ugha mRrj x;s Fks\ mRrj esa Jh 'kekZ us crk;k fd og ;k=h esjB ls lj/kuk ds Fks mudh lUrqf"V ds fy;s vkjksih us mUgsa vius gLrys[k esa lkewfgd fVdV la[;k 788 ns j[kk Fkk tks vkjksih }kjk iwoZ esa cuk gqvk fVdV Fkk] vkjksih us ukuw esa mrjus okys fdlh ;k=h dks lEHkor% ;k rks fVdV ugha fn;k gksxk vFkok ;k=h }kjk Qsadk x;k fVdV vkjksih us mBkdj nwljs ;kf=;ksa dks rlYyh gsrq mUgsa ns fn;k gksxkA** 29. After considering the aforesaid statements, the Labour Court held that the statements of the investigation team reveal that the statements have been made on surmises and conjectures and there was no material on record in support of the said statement. The Labour Court further held that the investigation team did not record the name and address of any of the passengers who were said to have possessed incomplete tickets, whereas the statement taken by the investigation team from the passengers during the investigation was submitted to the concerned Officer who submitted the investigation report. Consequently, the labour Court held that in the absence of any detail of the passengers and their addresses and placing reliance on the statement of such passengers by the Enquiry Officer also vitiate the enquiry proceeding as they were not produced before the Enquiry Officer to verify as to whether they had given any statement to the spot checking squad. 30. The facts delineated above, clearly reveal that the Labour Court has given elaborate and cogent reasons based upon the appreciation of facts and evidence on record to conclude that the enquiry was vitiated for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice. 31. 30. The facts delineated above, clearly reveal that the Labour Court has given elaborate and cogent reasons based upon the appreciation of facts and evidence on record to conclude that the enquiry was vitiated for non-compliance with the principle of natural justice. 31. Learned counsel for the petitioner though vehemently tried to submit that the finding of the Labour Court is perverse and erroneous, but could not demonstrate from the record that the said finding is perverse or erroneous or against any provision of law. In such view of the fact, since the finding with respect to the violation of the principle of natural justice returned by the labour Court is a finding of fact, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 32. In respect of the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, noted above, a query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner to place the application that the department had filed before the Labour Court to produce the documents on record which could prove the charge against the respondent no. 2. In response, he submits that no such application was submitted before labour court and the said statement has been made on the basis of averments made in Para-16 of the written statement. 33. He submits that no document had been supplied by the Officer of UPSRTC to him which the UPSRTC wanted to file before the Labour Court to demonstrate that the charge against respondent no. 2 was proved nor he could place any document from the record that was filed before the labour court by UPSRT which could establish that the charges leveled against the respondent no. 2 were correct. In such view of the fact, the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. This court is of the view that the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Kurukshetra University vs. Prithvi Singh, (2018) 4 SCC 483 is distinguishable on facts and does not come in aid to the petitioner. 34. This court is of the view that the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Kurukshetra University vs. Prithvi Singh, (2018) 4 SCC 483 is distinguishable on facts and does not come in aid to the petitioner. 34. So far as the third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner about back wages is concerned, this Court may note that the Labour Court while awarding full back wages has not given any reason, but in the facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to remand the matter as a poor employee has spent his golden years of life in contesting his rightful claim. He succeeded once before this Court and the matter was remanded, thereafter, again he succeeded before the Labour Court in year 2017 and since then more than 5 years have passed, and he has not yet reaped the fruits of the award. 35. It is pertinent to mention that respondent no. 2 in Para-2 of the written statement has categorically stated that despite his best effort, he could not get any employment, and he is without employment since the date of his termination till date. Para-22 of the objection dated 10.09.2022 appearing on Page 92 of the paper book is reproduced herein-below: ^^22- ;g fd lacaf/kr Jfed viuh lsok ls i`Fkd gksus dh frfFk ls vktrd csjkstxkj gS vkSj lacaf/kr Jfed us viuh csjkstxkjh dks lekIr djus ds fy, dkQh Á;kl fd,] fdUrq mls dksbZ ukSdjh ugha feyhA** 36. He again in Para-9 (page 106 of the paper-book) in his reply dated 22.10.2002 to the objection of UPSRTC has categorically stated that he has not been gainfully employed after his termination. Para-9 is reproduced herein-below: ^^;g fd /kkjk 16] 17] 18 dk dFku Hkh xSjdkuwuh ,oa vk/kkjghu gksus ds dkj.k Lohdkj ugha gS D;ksafd lsok;kstdksa us tkap djds o lacaf/kr Jfed ds fo:} vkjksiksa dks fl} djds iw.kZ volj ys fy;k gS vkSj iqu% vkjksi fl} djus dk volj fy;k tkuk u rks U;k;ksfpr gS vkSj u gh ekuuh; Je U;k;ky; dks ,slk dksbZ {ks=kf/kdkj gh ÁkIr gSA lacaf/kr Jfed lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls vkt rd csjkstxkj gS vkSj fdlh Hkh ykHkÁn fu;kstu esa ugha gS rFkk lacaf/kr Jfed viuh lsok lekfIr frfFk ls iw.kZ osru o vU; ns; ykHkksa dks ikus dk iw.kZ :i ls vf/kdkjh gSA** 37. respondent no. respondent no. 2 in his statement before the Labour Court has categorically stated on oath that he has not been gainfully employed after his termination from service. The relevant extract of the statement of respondent no. 2 from page 30 of the supplementary counter affidavit is reproduced herein-below: ^^----------eSa lsok lekfIr dh frfFk ls vkt rd csjkstxkj gawA eSus ukSdjh dh dkQh dksf'k'k dh ysfdu ukSdjh dgha ugha feyhA** 38. Though in the written statement dated 18.10.2002 of the UPSRTC, it has been stated in Para-17 that respondent no. 2 has been gainfully employed but no evidence was filed by the UPSRTC to prove that respondent no. 2 was gainfully employed after termination. It is settled law that once it has been pleaded and stated by the employee that he has not been gainfully employed after his termination, the onus is upon the department to prove that the employee has been gainfully employed after termination, and only then the burden will shift upon the employer to prove that he was not gainfully employed. 39. In this context, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junion Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, 2013 (139) FLR 541 (SC) has held as under: “33. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are: (i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. (ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors. (iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments. (iv) The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages. (v) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same. The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages. (vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e. the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited vs. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra).” 40. From the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that it is settled in law that in case of wrongful termination of service, the reinstatement with continuity of service with back wages is a normal rule. From the aforesaid judgment, it is evident that it is settled in law that in case of wrongful termination of service, the reinstatement with continuity of service with back wages is a normal rule. The Apex Court in the said case has further laid down that ordinarily, an employee demanding back wages, is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or at the Court of first instance that he was not gainfully employed or was employed on lessor wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the workman was gainfully employed during the period of termination and was drawing wages equal to the wages he was drawing prior to the termination of service. 41. In the instant case, as has been delineated above that a specific case has been set up by respondent no. 2 that he was not employed gainfully anywhere which fact though has been denied in the objection by the UPSRTC, none of its witnesses before the Labour Court have denied the statement of respondent no. 2 before Labour Court that he was not gainfully employed and was not drawing any wage which he was getting before the termination. The UPSRTC did not lead any evidence to demonstrate that respondent no. 2 was gainfully employed and was getting the same wages as he was getting before the termination. 42. It is settled in law that Court should endeavor to do substantial justice. This court has ample power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to do substantial justice, and in doing so, it can supplement the reason in support of a finding of a subordinate court if it finds that there is enough material on record that justifies the finding of the subordinate court or tribunal though no reason has been given by the subordinate court or the tribunal ins support of said finding. 43. In the instant case as there was ample material on record that proved that respondent no. 2 was not gainfully employed after his termination, therefore, this Court is not inclined to remand the matter on this technical ground before the Labour Court that no reason was assigned by the Labour Court before awarding back wages. 44. 43. In the instant case as there was ample material on record that proved that respondent no. 2 was not gainfully employed after his termination, therefore, this Court is not inclined to remand the matter on this technical ground before the Labour Court that no reason was assigned by the Labour Court before awarding back wages. 44. In such view of the fact, this Court finds that as it is established on record by respondent no. 2 that he was not gainfully employed after his termination, the Labour Court has rightly given full back wages. 45. Thus, the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) and Hindustan Motors Ltd. (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point that since the tribunal has not given any reason while awarding back wages vitiates the award are not applicable in the facts of the present case as in those cases, it seems that there was material on record which established that the employees were gainfully employed after termination. 46. Thus, for the reasons given above, the petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed and the award of the labour court is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.