IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.281 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.3.2010 Sukhdev Raj. -----Appellant Vs. Labour Court and another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. M.S. Longia, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge upholding the award of the Labour Court, reinstating the appellant/workman in service with continuity of service and full backwages with a further direction that backwages be calculated on the basis of monthly emoluments, last drawn prior to dismissal from service, as against claim of the workman for allowing backwages at currect rate. 2. The workman was employed with the management as Turner since 1965. After holding an inquiry, he was dismissed from service in the year 1968. An industrial dispute was raised, which was referred for adjudication. Initially, the award was against the workman but on remand of the matter by the Hon’ble LPA No.281 of 2010 Supreme Court, the award was made in favour of the workman by invoking Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, “the Act”). Against the award, the workman as well as the management filed writ petitions. Contention raised on behalf of the workman was that full backwages as per current rate should have been allowed while contention of the management was that Section 11-A of the Act should not have been invoked in view of nature of charges against the workman. 3. Even though learned Single Judge held that the charge against the workman was proved and finding of the Labour Court, to the contrary, was perverse, having regard to the fact that the workman had already received payment in terms of the award and was reinstated, it was held that no interference was called for after a long time. Claim of the workman for further relief was rejected. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned Single Judge has recorded a categoric finding on the misconduct of the workman and not interfered with the award of the Labour Court in favour of the workman, having regard to long delay. In such circumstances, the claim of the workman for higher rate of backwages is without any substance, particularly in view of recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that even where dismissal is illegal, claim for backwages cannot be mechanically accepted (J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal, (2007) 2 SCC 433). In the present case, 2 LPA No.281 of 2010 the workman had hardly rendered service for three years prior to dismissal from service and was reinstated in the year 1987 and thus, his claim for backwages was for about 19 years which could not be mechanically allowed. 6. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 02, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3