IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.10557 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 20, 2011. Sarvjit Singh .....Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Deepak Sonak, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner workman seeks modification of the Award dated 6.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) to the extent that payment of back wages has been restricted to 50% though he has been reinstated with continuity of service. The petitioner-workman was appointed as a Nut Operator on 14.12.1996. His services were allegedly terminated w.e.f. 28.11.1998 without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner sent a demand notice and in response thereto, the Management sent a notice to him on 1.12.1998 that he was absenting from duty w.e.f. 26.11.1998. The Tribunal on appreciation of CWP No.10557 of 2011 [2] the material on record did not accept the plea taken by the Management and has held that it was a case of illegal retrenchment without complying with Section 25-F of the Act. Consequently, the Management has been directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service alongwith 50% of the back wages. The petitioner contends that he ought to have been given the full back wages. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and pursued the record. Ordinarily, the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in the matter of grant of back wages calls for no interference unless a clear case of any perverse finding of fact is made out. The petitioner hardly served the Management for a period of three years when he is alleged to have been retrenched. Taking into consideration the total length of service rendered by the petitioner, the award of 50% back wages especially when owing to the semi skilled nature of his job, it can be safely presumed that the petitioner while out of service, must have engaged himself in some alternative job. The grant of 50% back wages is neither arbitrary nor illegal which may warrant interference of this Court. Dismissed. July 20, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE