1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective sides.

2. Both these petitions are being heard together.

3. The petitioner in the first petition is the employee. The respondent is the employer. In the 2nd petition, the petitioner is the employer bank and the respondent is the employee. Since both these petitions challenge the same judgments of the Labour Court, Dhule and the Industrial Court, Dhule the petitions can be heard together.

4. By orders dated 13th of December 2011, both these petitions were admitted. The statement of the employer that the employee has already been reinstated in service was recorded by this Court. Since back wages were denied by the Industrial Court, no interim relief was granted to the employer.

5. After hearing the learned advocates for the employer and the employee, the facts of the case can be summarised as follows; –

(a) The employee had joined the employer in 1990 as an Assistant in the Clerical grade.

(b) On 28th May 2005, the employee submitted a leave application for a period of 13 days from 28th May 2005 to 11th June 2005. The said application was submitted since the employee was not feeling well.

(c) On 15th of June 2005, the employee approached the employer for resuming duties. It is claimed that the officers of the bank prevented the employee from reporting for duties.

(d) On 18th of October 2005, the employee was served a chargesheet.

(e) Shri A D Patel was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the employer.

(f) The employee claims to have been harassed since his father had lodged a criminal complaint of atrocities against some of the Directors and the Manager of the Bank.

(g) Upon conclusion of the enquiry and after following the procedure, the employee came to be dismissed from service by order dated 6th March 2006.

(h) The employee filed Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 2006 against the employer challenging the order of punishment.

(i) The employer filed its Written Statement for opposing the complaint.

(j) The complaint filed by the employee was allowed by the judgment and order dated 6 March 2008.

(k) The employer challenged the said judgment before the Industrial Court at Dhule by filing Revision Petition No. 7 of 2008.

(l) By its judgment and order dated 24th of may 2009, the Industrial Court, Dhule allowed the revision petition filed by the employer by quashing and setting aside the the order passed by Labour Court dated 6.3.2009 and remanded the matter back to Labour Court for decision on the complaint afresh after framing proper issues.

(m) The employee, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court preferred Writ Petition before this Court. The said petition was allowed by this Court and the judgment of the Industrial Court was set aside.

(n) While deciding the Revision Petition afresh, the Industrial Court considered the records and proceedings and was pleased to confirm the judgment of the labour Court to the extent of reinstating the employee in service along with continuity. However, the relief of back wages granted to the employee was quashed and set aside.

(o) The employee upon being aggrieved by the refusal of the Industrial Court to grant back wages has preferred this writ petition.

(p) The employer in view of the order of reinstatement and continuity of service granted to the employee, challenged the said judgment by filing this writ petition.

(q) Therefore, since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, they are being heard together.

6. The contention of the employee is that the order of dismissal having been termed to be illegal, reinstatement with continuity of service needs to be accompanied with backwages. It is submitted that the backwages should be granted as a matter of course since the dismissal of the employee has been set aside by law. The Labour Court and the Industrial Court having concluded that the order of dismissal was unsustainable, backwages should have been granted along with reinstatement and co