L.P.A. No. 2088 of 2011(O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … L.P.A. No. 2088 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 16.11.2011 The Shahbad Primary Agricultural Coop. Society Ltd. ..Appellant Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court, Ambala and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M.Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. C.R. Dahiya, Advocate for the Appellant. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. 1. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge partly allowing the writ petition filed by the workman and consequently modifying the award of the Labour Court and directing reinstatement of the petitioner-workman with continuity in service and 50% back wages. 2. The facts in brief are that the services of the workman were terminated on 13.6.1980 when he was working as Accounts Clerk. On a reference made, the Labour Court decided the case in favour of the workman and Civil Writ Petition No. 1462 of 1990 against the award filed by the management was dismissed by an order dated 23.8.2006. In the Letters Patent Appeal filed then, the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court vide order dated 10.1.2008. The Labour Court decided the L.P.A. No. 2088 of 2011(O&M) 2 matter afresh and ordered reinstatement with full back wages. 3. The learned Single Judge found that on remand, no fresh evidence was led by the management in support of the order of termination passed way back in 1980. In the absence of further evidence, there was no proof of charges levelled against the workman. Both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have ordered reinstatement on appreciation of evidence led before the Labour Court. In appeal, we are as circumscribed as the writ court that exercises only supervisory certiorari jurisdiction over awards passed by the Labour Court. In the absence of any patent error of jurisdiction, we are unable to see any merit in this appeal. Learned Single Judge has appreciated the fact that for the last 20/23 years, the petitioner has fended for himself and therefore, it would be difficult to believe that he was not employed gainfully or otherwise over two decades. The learned Single Judge has factored that period of absence into the ultimate decision upholding reinstatement but reducing back wages to 50%. We asked Mr. Dahiya, learned counsel for the appellant as to what were the last drawn wages of the workman in 1980 or DC rates then obtaining and he conceded that it must have then been a paltry amount and that 50% back wages would add up only to a pittance of a few thousands today. 4. We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment in appeal. We also do not think it fit to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Learned single judge in reducing full back wages to 50% in writ jurisdiction. We, however, feel that interest of justice may be best served if we order 6% interest to run on the amount of 50% back wages looking to the long suffering this litigation may have caused to the respondent-workman for thirty years and a sense of helplessness that must have gnawed. We hope this interest or damages or by whatever name called may act as a balm. We accordingly dismiss this appeal in limine with the aforesaid rider. The L.P.A. No. 2088 of 2011(O&M) 3 fruit of this litigation may now be made available to the respondent forthwith. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE JUDGE November 16,2011 nk