JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is filed challenging judgment dt.28.07.2017 in CWP-19956-2012.

2. Respondent No.2 was appointed as a Helper in the Punjab School Education Board (Appellant No.1) on 01.02.1996 on daily wages, but his services were terminated on 05.06.1998 in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. A reference was made by the State of Punjab under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Gurdaspur as to whether his termination was legal and justified, and if it is not justified, then what were the benefits he should be granted.

4. An award was passed on 21.10.2011 by the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal (respondent no.1) after considering the evidence on record that the termination of respondent No.2 was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He therefore set aside the termination of respondent No.2 by the appellants and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service. He however observed that it cannot be taken that respondent No.2 remained fully unemployed between the date of his termination and till the date of the award, and so granted only 50% of back wages from the date of termination of his services till he is taken on duty.

5. The appellants filed CWP-19956-2012 challenging said award contending that respondent No.2 had been reinstated in service, but since there was a delay in raising the industrial dispute for 4 years, the award of the Industrial Tribunal, to the extent it granted back wages, has to be set aside.

6. Respondent No.2 however contended in the Writ Petition that the Industrial Tribunal had only awarded 50% back wages taking into consideration the fact that there was a delay of 4 years in raising the industrial dispute, and so, there is no necessity to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal.

7. The learned Single Judge partly allowed the Writ Petition on 28.07.2017 and modified that award of the Industrial Tribunal holding that respondent No.2 is entitled to 50% back wages only from the date of reference i.e. 19.07.2002 and not from 05.06.1998, when his services were terminated. The appellants were directed to calculate and disburse back wages within 3 months from 28.07.2017, failing which it was held that respondent No.2 would be entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of the award.

8. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants.

9. Counsel for the appellants reiterated his contention that no back wages should have been awarded at all in favour of respondent No.2, and learned Single Judge had erred in granting back wages to respondent No.2 from 19.07.2002, though not from 05.06.1998. Counsel for the appellants relied on Brij Bhushan v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court , Panipat 1998(3) SCT 17 (DB) P&H, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. v. Kailash Narayan Sharma 2014(16) SCC 440 SC, Divisional Forest Officer v. Mangat Ram & Another 2009(1) SCT 62-DB P&H, Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana 2010(1) SLR 193-DB P&H, Shivlal Kumar v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Hissar 2012(3) RSJ 479 (DB) P&H, and Ram Palat v. Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, U.T. 2015(2) SCT 163 (SB) P&H.

10. Counsel for respondent No.2 however contended that the order of the learned Single Judge is an equitable order and did