IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1809 (M/S) of 2006 M/S Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. . .……… Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer and another ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Navneet Kaushik, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.B. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman. The present petition has been filed against an award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and with 50% backwages alongwith cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the workman, as per his written statement, was initially appointed as an apprentice between the period 3rd August, 1984 to 17th June, 1985 and, thereafter, he was appointed in a permanent capacity as a Fitter / Helper and continued to work till 24th July, 1986 when his services were arbitrarily dispensed with. The workman, being aggrieved by his illegal dispensation of service, raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court u/S 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employer before the Labour Court contended that he had never worked as a workman in the employer’s concern and that there was no master and servant relationship. The workman had worked as an apprentice in which there was no master and servant relationship. The Labour Court, after considering the matter and after hearing the parties, gave an award holding that 2 from 17th June, 1985 to 23rd July, 1986, the workman had worked in the some capacity in the employer’s concern and had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The Labour Court consequently found that the dispensation of the services of the workman was made in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and, accordingly, directed his reinstatement with 50% of backwages. The employer being aggrieved has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the Labour Court with regard to 240 days is patently perverse, in as much as, the Labour Court had taken the said period in which the workman was working as an apprentice which period cannot be taken into consideration. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. From a perusal of the award, it is clear that the workman had worked as an apprentice from 01/07/1984 to 17/06/1985 and, thereafter, have worked as a workman which the Labour Court has deciphered on the basis of various evidence which were brought on record, namely, exhibit 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 and concluded that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. In my opinion, the Labour Court has given this finding on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence brought on the record, which cannot be interfered in a writ jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, this court does not find any error in the impugned award in so far as the direction of reinstatement of the workman is concerned. However, the Court finds the direction to pay 50% of the backwages is unjustified and arbitrary and is not based on any reasons. The Supreme Court in recent years in various judgments has held that back wages should not be granted as a matter of right. Further, there is no finding that the workman 3 was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. No counter affidavit has been filed by the workman to indicate that the workman was unemployed during the intervening period. In the light of the aforesaid and, in view of the fact that pursuant to the interim order, 25% of the backwages has been paid, this Court modifies the award of the Labour Court to the extent that instead of 50% of the backwages, the workman would be entitled to 25% of the backwages. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The award of the Labour Court is modified to the above extent. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 22.12.2009 Shiv