Judgment S. S. SUDHALKAR, J. 1. The petitioner is the employer of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 made a demand challenging his termination from service. In the reference made to the Labour court the Labour Court upheld the claim of respondent No.1 and ordered reinstatement of respondent No.1 with 70 percent back wages. This writ petition has been filed by the employer, challenging the award of the Labour court. 2. When the matter was argued, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his arguments only qua the award of 70 percent back wages. According to him, respondent No.1 was gainfully employed and was running a kiryana Shop and that the Labour Court has erred in not considering this contention of the petitioner. He has also drawn our attention to the statement of the witness of the petitioner ashok Mittal, copy of which is at Annexure p/5. In the examination-in-chief, the witness has state that respondent No.1 is running a kiryana (General) Store in his village. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this assertion in examination-in-chief by witness of the petitioner, has not been challenged in the cross-examination and therefore, the assertion has gone unchallenged and should have been accepted. However after, reading the cross-examination, we cannot agree with this statement. The last three questions answered by the witness bad gone to show that he had challenged the said assertion made by the petitioner. The answer to this question is quoted below: 3. This goes to show that questions have been asked to the witness to take-out from him that he was not having personal knowledge regarding respondent No.1 running a Kiryana shop. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Harbans Lal V/s. Bhim singh 1977 Cur. L. J.259. It has been held therein by the learned single Judge of this Court that when there is no cross-examination of witness on a particular point of his examination-in-chief, it shows that the other party has accepted that point. We do not express any opinion on the observations made by the learned single Judge. However, even if the proposition is to be accepted, from the facts that emerge in this case from the deposition and cross examination of the witness of the petitioner, we find that the assertion made by the petitioner has been sufficiently challenged by respondent No.1 in the cross examination. However, even if the proposition is to be accepted, from the facts that emerge in this case from the deposition and cross examination of the witness of the petitioner, we find that the assertion made by the petitioner has been sufficiently challenged by respondent No.1 in the cross examination. Moreover, the Labour Court has restricted the back wages to 70 per cent. 5. We do not find any reason to interfere with, the award of the Labour Court. This petition is therefore, dismissed.