Order : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD , J. 1. The instant appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 03.10.2024 passed in W.P.(L) No.2077 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the Award passed by learned Labour Court in I.D. Case No.01 of 2014 awarding 50% back wages has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as under :- The case of the workman in brief is that the earlier his employer was running the business in the same premises in the name and style of M/s. Bharat Castings Corporation which is presently is known as M/s. Amit Steel Industries (P) Ltd. It has been stated that his employer, M/s Amit Steel Industries (P) Ltd., Bokaro Industrial Area Bokaro has wrongfully terminated the services of the applicant workman (respondent herein).It has further been stated that the action of the management in termination of respondent/workman is not justified. The case of the respondent/workman is that the workman had been working in the factory of the employer since 19.09.1985 on the post of Operator and he was involved in the work of welding and melting. The workman was doing his work with sincerity and devotion but the workman was terminated from the employment by the management without any reason only on account of suspicion. Further, the case of the workman is that on 26.06.2013, the workman made a verbal request to the manager who is also the proprietor of the plant to enhance the amount of his monthly salary, which was perhaps not liked by him and suddenly he got so much infuriated and the workman was verbally asked by him not to report for duty from the next day. It has been stated that even after verbal instruction by the management, the workman remained himself reporting daily on the gate of the plant/factory continuously till 03.07.2013 but was not allowed to enter into the plant by the gate keeper/security guard. It is stated that Manager Sri Awadhesh Prasad had asked the gatekeeper not to allow the entry of the applicant in the plant. It is stated that Manager Sri Awadhesh Prasad had asked the gatekeeper not to allow the entry of the applicant in the plant. Since the workman was running under great hardships, so he requested to the management for making him the final payment of dues such as the amount of due salary for the month of June, 2013, amount of P.F., amount of gratuity, amount of Notice Pay, amount of retrenchment benefit, etc. as per the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (herein referred as Act, 1947). Further, the case of the workman is that on 20.07.2013 the workman received a call on his mobile from Sri A.K. Pathak the cashier who informed him that owner of the plant Sri Amit Prasad has desired to meet the workman and on the same day the workman was ill-treated and scolded there. The workman, after the incident, filed an application before the Conciliation Officer-cum-Labour Superintendent, Bokaro Steel City who started conciliation proceeding at his level vide his letter No. 770 dt. 12.11.2013 and letter no.52 dt. 30.01.2014. The proprietor of M/s Amit Steel Industries (P) Ltd. was called for conciliation first time on 23.11.2013 and thereafter on 11.02.2014 but on both the dates neither the employer himself nor his any representative appeared, so the workman was verbally advised by the Conciliation Officer and Labour Superintendent that conciliation has failed and the workman should file his case directly before the Labour Court. The workman, thereafter, had sent a legal notice to the management through his advocate through speed post but till the filing of the case he has not received any reply. Thereafter the workman filed his case before Labour Court after expiry of the statutory time period of conciliation. The learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence, has allowed the case in favour of the workman vide order/judgment dated 16.12.2022 holding the workman entitled for 50% of total back wages along with other consequential benefits from 26.06.2013 till the date of his superannuation which was challenged by the Management by filing writ petition being W.P.(L) No.2077 of 2023 which has been dismissed by order dated 03.10.2024, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 3. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the workman had been working in the factory of the appellant since 19.09.1985 on the post of Operator and he was involved in the work of welding and melting. The workman was verbally asked not to report for duty. Even after verbal instruction by the management, the workman was reporting daily on the gate of the plant/factory but was not allowed to enter into the plant by the gate keeper/security guard. When this situation continued and since the workman was facing great hardships, so he requested to the management for making him the final payment of dues such as the amount of due salary for the month of June, 2013, amount of P.F., amount of gratuity, amount of Notice Pay, amount of retrenchment benefit, etc. as per the provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. 1947. The workman filed an application before the Conciliation Officer-cum-Labour Superintendent, Bokaro Steel City who started conciliation proceeding but neither the employer himself nor his any representative appeared in the proceeding. The workman, thereafter, had sent a legal notice to the management through his advocate through speed post but till the filing of the case he has not received any reply. Thereafter the workman filed his case before Labour Court. The learned Labour Court held the workman entitled for 50% of total back wages along with other consequential benefits from 26.06.2013 till the date of his superannuation which was challenged by the Management by filing writ petition being W.P.(L) No.2077 of 2023 which has been dismissed by order dated 03.10.2024, against which the present appeal has been preferred. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant- management 4. Mr. Amitabh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Management, has submitted that before awarding 50% back wages, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that nothing has been brought on record to show that the workman was not gainfully employed during the period in question. 5. He has further submitted that it has also not been considered that for claiming EPF the workman had filled up Form 9 in which he has stated that he himself had resigned from service and, therefore, he is not entitled for back wages. 6. Learned counsel, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs interference. 6. Learned counsel, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs interference. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman: 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman, defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has submitted that the management only took the ground of gainful employment of the workman but did not produce any evidence to that effect and hence, order which has been passed taking into consideration the material available on record, needs no interference. 8. He has further submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner/appellant to lead evidence which they did not avail and the evidence was closed way back as on 18.07.2019 and has been decided on the basis of the materials which have been placed before the learned Labour Court and no fresh material can be taken into consideration once the management did not lead any evidence. 9. Learned counsel, on the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. Analysis 10. The issue which requires consideration is as to whether awarding 50% back wages by the learned Labour Court to the respondent-writ petitioner/the workman, which has not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge, can be said to be unjustified? 11. This Court, before answering the aforesaid issue, needs to refer herein the proposition of law for showing interference with the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court or the learned Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be. 12. The law is well settled that the power of judicial review regarding interference to be shown in the order passed by the Tribunal while answering the reference is very limited, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. Radhakrishnan, reported in A.I.R. 1964 SC 477 , wherein at paragraph no.7 their Lordships have been pleased to held as follows:- “The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233 ); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : ( AIR 1958 SC 398 ) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168 .” 13. In another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Sawarn Singh Vrs. State of Punjab reported in (1976) 2 SCC 868 their Lordships while discussing the power of writ under Article 226 for issuance of writ of certiorari has been pleased to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as under:- “12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra). 13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” 14. In another judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. Vrs. In another judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsico India Holding (P) Ltd. Vrs. Krishna Kant Pandey reported in (2015) 4 SCC 270 their Lordships while discussing the scope of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of interference with the finding of the tribunal has been pleased to hold by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vrs. Ashalata S. Guram reported in (1986) 4 SCC 447 at para 17 has held as under:- “17. In case of finding of facts, the court should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the observations of this Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal V. Laxmibai R. Tarta where this Court observed that the High Court could not in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal. The High Court was not competent to correct errors of facts by examining the evidence and reappreciating. Speaking for the Court, Bhagwati, J, as the learned Chief Justice then was, observed at page 1301 of the report as follows: …...... power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways v. Sukumar Mukherjee to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. This statement of law was quoted with approval in the subsequent decision of this Court in Nagendra Nath Bose V. Commr. Of Hills Division and it was pointed out by Sinha, J., as he then was, speaking on behalf of the court in that case: It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Article 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasijudicial nature, are not greater than the power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under Article 226 the power of interference may extent to quashing an impugned order on the ground of mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeking that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.” 15. Under Article 226 the power of interference may extent to quashing an impugned order on the ground of mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeking that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority.” 15. It is evident from the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court in the judgments as referred hereinabove that the scope of High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of power of judicial review on the finding of the labour court is very limited. 16. This Court, basing upon the aforesaid proposition, is now proceeding to consider the issue as has been formulated hereinabove. 17. It is evident from the factual aspect that before the learned Labour Court, the issue of retrenchment from service has been referred for its adjudication. 18. Learned Labour Court, based upon the evidence led before it and the documents produced on behalf of the parties, has passed the Award holding the workman entitled for 50% of total back wages along with other consequential benefits from 26.06.2013 till the date of his superannuation, for ready reference, the operative part of the Award is being referred herein :- “So far as the question of back wages and other consequential benefits of the workman is concern, granting of back wages is a general rule but it is not a rule of thumb that in every case where termination is found in the violation of natural justice, the entire back wages be awarded. To get full back wages, the workman is required to plead and to prove that he was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. In this case there is no pleading and evidence that the workman was not gainfully employed anywhere. In case of Tinplate Company of India Limited Vs. T.V.R.Raju 2021(1)JLJR176 Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court has held that: "19 In view of aforesaid reported Judgments, it can comfortably be held as and when the order of termination is set aside, the workman is entitled for back wages but as far as quantum is concerned, it depends on the judicial discretion taken into consideration the nature and the charges against the employee and the pleadings based with evidence regarding gainful employment. 20. 20. In the Instant case, neither of the parties pleaded or adduced any of the evidence to prove the material facts required for award of the back wages. Onus lies on the employee to prove and plead whether he was gainfully employed or not but the employer also cannot be given a clean chit. Though initial burden is on the employee, but the employer is also to prove that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period." In the facts of this case, oral termination of the workman from the employment by the management is found to be in the violation of natural justice. The workman was not allowed to work in the factory by the management from 26.06.2013. The workman filed case in the year 2014. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the view that the workman is entitled for 50% of total back wages along with other consequential benefits from 26.06.2013 till the date of his superannuation.” 19. The Management preferred writ petition against the part of Award to the extent by which the direction upon the Management has been passed for making payment of 50% back wages on the ground that there is no pleading to the effect that the workman was not gainfully employed. 20. The learned Single Judge has not impressed upon such ground by taking into consideration the fact that specific finding has been recorded by the learned Labour Court by holding the issue of retrenchment to be unjustified. 21. The question of legality and propriety of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as also the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court is the issue in the instant appeal. 22. The question of back wages has been dealt with by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 , wherein it has been held that the onus lies upon the employer who wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments, for ready reference, para 22 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted hereunder:- “22. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer- employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.” 23. Further, in the aforesaid judgment, Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Others (Supra), the following propositions have been laid down at paragraph 38 which is being quoted herein:- 38.1. Further, in the aforesaid judgment, Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Others (Supra), the following propositions have been laid down at paragraph 38 which is being quoted herein:- 38.1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. 38.2. 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. 38.3. 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. 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 averment 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. 38.4. 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. 38.5. 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. 38.5. 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 victimising the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned 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. The courts must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a 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. 38.6. In a number of cases, the superior courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalisation 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. 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 (P) Ltd. v. Employees [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 ] . 38.7. The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal [ (2007) 2 SCC 433 ] that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three-Judge Benches [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 ] , [Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443 ] referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman. 24. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment, more particularly para-38.3 which starts as “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. 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 averment 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”. 25. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid paragraph that the ordinarily a pleading is to be made before the adjudicating authority of the court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed. 26. 25. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid paragraph that the ordinarily a pleading is to be made before the adjudicating authority of the court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed. 26. Further, from paragraph-38.4, it would be evident that the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to lay down that the case 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. 27. Further, from paragraph-38.5, it would be evident that 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 victimising the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned 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. The courts must always keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a 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. 28. Further, from paragraph-38.6, it would be evident that in a number of cases, the superior courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalisation of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. 28. Further, from paragraph-38.6, it would be evident that in a number of cases, the superior courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalisation 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 (P) Ltd. v. Employee. 29. It is, thus, evident that the guidelines as under para- 38 of aforesaid judgment, according to the considered view of this Court, is in two parts, first part deals with the part of pleading to be made by the concerned workman of having not gainfully employed, however, if the learned labour court or the industrial tribunal is exercising the power conferred under Section 11-A of the Act, 1947 and if the punishment has been found to be disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then the discretion is upon the adjudicator not to award full back wages. But, 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. Likewise, para-38.5 also stipulates three eventualities of issuing a direction passing an award on back wages if the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimising the employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. 30. 30. Thus, it is evident that para-38.5 stipulates condition to award back wages in the following situation, where : (i) employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions, and/or; (ii) the employer has acted in violation of the principles of natural justice or; (iii) the employer is guilty of victimising the employee or workman. 31. In the aforesaid circumstances, the court or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. And, 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 keep in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a 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. 32. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid guideline that merely on account of the fact that the pleading to the effect of not gainfully employed cannot be a ground not to make payment of back wages, rather, the suffering/predicament of the workman is to be taken into consideration as to what extent the suffering is due to illegal retrenchment of the concerned employee, as would be evident from the guideline at paragraph 38.5 of the judgment in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Others (Supra), as quoted above. 33. This Court, in view of the aforesaid proposition of law rendered in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) and Others (Supra), is of the view that merely because the pleading of not gainfully employed is not there, the back wages cannot be denied to be given in favour of the workman if the decision of retrenchment has been held to be unjustified by the learned Labour Court. 34. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is answering the issue against the appellant-Management. 35. 34. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is answering the issue against the appellant-Management. 35. Adverting to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order wherefrom it is evident that the learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the fact of suffering of the workman due to the illegal retrenchment of the concerned employee and if in that view of the matter the Award for making payment of 50% back wages has been held to be justified, which according to our considered view, based upon the aforesaid reason and the proposition of law as has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court, cannot be faulted with. 36. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.