R. C. CHAVAN, J.:- This appeal by employee takes exception to judgment by the learned single Judge allowing respondent employer's Writ Petition No.4733 of 2005. whereby the learned Judge quashed and set aside order passed by the Courts below granting to the appellant full back wages.

2. The appellant is serving as a conductor with the respondent Corporation. On 20th September, 1992 the bus, on which the appellant was on duty as conductor, Was checked and on the basis of observations made by the Checking Party an enquiry was started against the appellant. According to the appellant, the enquiry was not conducted property and the appellant was dismissed from service by an order dated 8th December, 1994. The appellant filed complaint before the Judge, Labour Court, Amravati under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Lablur Practices Act. The learned Judge, Labour Court held that the appellant was not given opportunity of cross-examining employer's witnesses and, therefore, enquiry was not proper and was not conducted according to the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, allowed complaint, and declared that the respondents had engaged in unfair labour practices and directed reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service and full back wages. Respondent's revision was rejected by the learned Member, Industrial Court, who too consulted with the fll1ding that the appellant had not been given opportunity of cross-examining respondent's witnesses.

3. While deciding employer's petition challenging these judgments, the learned single Judge held that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Agrawal, reported at (2007)2 SCC 433 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & anr. Vs. S. C. Sharma, reported at (2005)2 SCC 363 in the absence of pleadings and proof for grant of back wages, the Courts below could not have granted back wages. He, therefore, allowed the petition to the extent the orders directed payment of back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the employee has preferred this appeal, which was directed to be disposed of at the stage of admission itself by consent of panics.

4. We have heard Shri. N. R. Saboo, learned counsel for the appellant-employee and Shri. S. C. Mehadia, learned counsel for the respondent-employer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Apex Court could not be said to have held that an employee is not entitled to back wages upon setting aside his dismissal unless he has pleaded and proved that he is entitled to such back wages by leading oral evidence. He submitted that J. K. Synthetics Vs. K. P. Agrawal, on which the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance, cannot at all be interpreted to lay down the law that upon ordering reinstatement of an employee, whose dismissal was found to be illegal, back wages could not have been ordered to be paid. For this purpose. he drew our attention to observations in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Judgment to the following effect. :

"19. But the cases referred to above, where back wages were awarded, related to termination/retrenchment which were held to be illegal and invalid for non-compliance with statutory requirement or related to cases where the Court found that the termination was motivated or amounted to victimisation. The decision relating to back wages payable on illegal retrenchment or termination may have no application to the case like the present one, where the termination (dismissal or removal or comoulsory retirement) is by way of punishment for misconduct in a departmental inquiry, and the court confirms the finding regarding misconduct. but only interferes with the punishment being of the view that it is excessive. and awards a lesser punishment. resulting in the reinstatement of employee. Where the power under Article 226 or Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (or any other similar provision) is exercised by any Court to interfere w