1 wp-5691-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 5691 OF 2009 Shri.Shrirang Ramchandra Deshmukh ..Petitioner Vs. CEAT India Ltd. ..Respondent .... Mr. Rahul S.Kate Adv. for Petitioner Mr.J.P.Cama Senior Counsel i/b Mrs.N.R.Patankar Adv. and Mr. V.P.Sawant Adv. for Respondent .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-workman and the learned counsel for the respondent-company. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he came to be terminated from service by the respondent on 18.3.1992. He raised a dispute. Ultimately a reference came to be made before the 6th Labour Court, Mumbai. The said reference came to be allowed by order dated 30.9.2004 in his favour and he came to be reinstated with back wages and continuity of service. Being aggrieved thereby, respondent-company preferred Writ 2 wp-5691-09 Petition No.1282 of 2005. The said petition came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 18.7.2006. By the said order, the petition was partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award was set aside to the extent of the order relating to payment of back wages. The matter was remanded back for deciding the issue relating to back wages. Thereafter, the impugned award has been passed whereby the petitioner was granted 50% back wages. By the said award, the respondent-company was directed to pay the petitioner back wages to the extent of 50% back wages from the date of termination of his services with effect from 18.3.1992 till his reinstatement i.e. 10.11.2005. Being aggrieved by the fact that only 50% back wages were granted and not full back wages were granted, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner-company has challenged this award by filing Writ Petition No.796 of 2008 before this Court. This Court considered the issue as to whether 50% back wages had been rightly awarded. After considering the said issue, writ petition came to be dismissed. However, in the said order observations were made that “it was not demonstrated that the order is perverse. ” It was further observed that “the award of the Labour Court being consistent with the deposition of the parties, this is not a fit case for interference. ” Lastly, it was observed that “the learned Judge has in these circumstances granted 3 wp-5691-09 back wages to the extent of 50%. This finding is based on the fact of other income. Thus, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and is summarily rejected. ” 4. It may be stated here that the said order was challenged before the Division Bench by filing Appeal No.265 of 2008. The Division Bench by order dated 10.7.2008 dismissed the said appeal. In both the orders the issue relating to back wages was considered in depth including the fact of sale of agricultural property of the petitioner. The issue of back wages has been considered in detail and thereafter, the petition as well as appeal have been disposed of. In view of this fact and the fact that in both these orders, it has been held that the order of the Labour Court granting 50% back wages does not call for any interference, and as in the present petition the same issue has been raised which has already been considered by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court, hence, in my view, no interference is called for. Petition is dismissed. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]