IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.612 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 26.11.2009 Braham Parshad. -----Appellant Vs. Milk Federation & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Ms. Abha Rathore, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the workman against order of learned Single Judge to the extent his prayer for grant of interest has not been granted. 2. The workman was employed as Helper with the management of Milk Federation, a cooperative society. He was given a chargesheet on the allegation of adulterating water in the milk and after an inquiry, the charges was proved. On that basis, he was dismissed from service on 6.8.1986. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide award dated 18.11.1991 held that though inquiry against the workman was fair and the LPA No.612 of 2009 charges were established, having regard to the fact that the workman had already rendered 13 years of service, punishment was required to be substituted by reduction of pay by Rs.100/- per month and he was held entitled to Rs.750/- per month. He was not held entitled to any backwages. 3. The workman filed CWP No.5918 of 1992 in this Court and this Court, vide order dated 27.3.2009, allowed the same by directing that he be given pay as per applicable pay scale, after reducing one increment. The workman also filed CWP No.17504 of 1999, seeking a mandamus to grant pay scale with arrears and interest. The said second petition was also disposed of by learned Single Judge on the same day, as infructuous, with further observation that claim with regard to interest was not justified. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Contention raised in the appeal is that once the workman has been held entitled to pay scale, he was entitled to interest for the period he was not given the said amount. 6. We do not find any merit in this contention. 7. The relief sought in the second petition was based on same cause of action which had already accrued to the petitioner and the issue was already subject matter of pending writ petition. This apart, the workman has been entitled to regular pay scale only by virtue of order of learned Single Judge, whereby the award has been modified. Mere fact that prior to his dismissal, 2 LPA No.612 of 2009 the workman was employed in the pay scale, cannot be taken to be conclusive for claim for interest. 8. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 26, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3