IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.898 OF 1996 (O&M) Date of decision:08.1.2010 Raj Kumar Sinhoner -----Appellant Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. J.S.Maanipur, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition against denial of relief of back wages by the Labour Court. 2. The appellant was employed with the respondent Cooperative Bank. He failed to pass the type test on account of which his services were terminated in the year 1985. He raised an industrial dispute alleging violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’). The LPA No.898 of 1996 (O&M) Labour Court upheld the plea of the workman and directed reinstatement without back wages. The workman challenged denial of back wages by filing writ petition in this Court, which was opposed by relying on order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court dated 4.12.1990 in SLP ( C) No.8091 of 1989 and another order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.575 of 1991. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition following orders of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that atleast 50% back wages should have been allowed. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank by its MD v. Damodhar Govind Idoorkar and others, (2009) 4 SCC 323. Therein, the award of back wages was modified and reduced to 50% of back wages having regard to facts of that case. 5. It is no longer the law that if termination is set aside, back wages must follow. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal, (2007) 2 SCC 433. As mentioned in the impugned order, 40 workmen were similarly placed and cases of some of the workmen considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were at par. Since case of the appellant-workman was at par with the case of 2 LPA No.898 of 1996 (O&M) other workmen of the same management who were also removed alongwith the appellant-workman, there is no ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge January 08, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3