LPA No.1312 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.1312 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 6 .10.2010 State of Haryana ... Appellant Versus Bhoop Singh and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG Hy. for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgement dated 17.9.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge modifying the award dated 10.4.2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-///cum- Labour Court, Gurgaon (for brevity 'the Tribunal'). It is pertinent to mention that a direction was issued by the Tribunal for reinstatement of the workman- respondent with full back wages. However, the learned Single Judge has modified the award after concluding that ends of justice would be met if the back wages are reduced to 50%. The argument of the appellant that the petitioner did not complete 240 days preceding the date of his dis-continuation in service was rejected. It has been found that the petitioner had worked from the year 1988 as a casual Labourer on daily wages in the Public Health Department and could not report for duty on 29.5.1993 on account of being un-well. Before the Labour Court evidence was adduced that the workman- respondent had worked for 169 days in the LPA No.1312 of 2010 2 year 1988, 356 days in 1989, 303 days in 1990, 296 days in 1991, 242 days in 1992 and 181 days in the year 1993. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Single Judge has found that from the date of dis- continuation of work the workman has completed 240 days and there was a violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity 'the Act'). The learned Single Judge further found with regard to back wages that there was no definite evidence with regard to engagement of the workman in some other employment and accordingly it was held that it would be the appropriate relief for the workman to get 50% of the back wages. Accordingly, the award has been modified by the learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned State Counsel at length and find that there is no merit in the instant appeal. It has been proved beyond doubt that the workman respondent had rendered service from the year 1988 and he has also completed 240 days preceding the date of his dis-continuation from employment. Once there is violation of compliance of provisions of Section 25 F of the Act, the relief of reinstatement is the ordinary principle in the absence of any factor which may result in refusal of that relief like the loss of confidence in the workman etc. There is no such factor present in the instant case which may necessitate for concluding that the workman is not to be reinstated. Therefore, we affirm the findings recorded by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge with regard to grant of relief of reinstatement. We further find justification for reducing the back wages to 50% as the period of dis-continuation of work till the date of award and then the period from the date of award till the decision of the learned Single Judge involved is over 16 years. It would meet the ends of justice if the LPA No.1312 of 2010 3 workman is awarded 50% of the back wages. Accordingly, we affirm the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge on the question of back wages as well. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal on merits, no orders are required to be passed on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. (M.M.Kumar) Judge ( Ritu Bahri ) 6 .10.2010 Judge okg