Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The writ petition challenges the Labour Courts award directing 50% of the wages for the relevant period from 14.11.1995 when the award was passed. 2. To a claim by the workman that he had been wrongly terminated from services, the response of the Management was that the workman had availed of a loan of Rs. 2,000/- on 8.12.1984 and had never returned to the factory. The contention was that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the service. There was no plea anywhere either by the petitioner or by the respondent relating to the age of the workman or that he was deemed to have been superannuated. However, it appears that it was elicited that the workman was 75 years at the time when he was giving the evidence. The Labour Court, therefore, assumed that he was more than 64 years of age at the time of termination on 8.12.1984. It still awarded 50% back wages as well as compensation as provided under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management would contend that in the absence of any specific agreement/settlement or award, the age of retirement by superannuation as per Industrial Employment Standing Orders, Punjab Rules, 1978 shall be 58 years and by such a reckoning on 8.12.1984, he must be deemed to have been superannuated. I find that such a contention had never been taken in the written statement. I find myself unable, therefore to subscribe to a reasoning that the workman must be deemed to be superannuated on that day. The finding of the Labour Court itself that the termination was bad in view of the fact that there had been no specific proceedings of the Management either by way of notice to show cause against termination or with reference to any particular standing order that enabled the Management to treat long absence without sanction of leave to mean abandonment of service. It shall not therefore, be possible for the employer to contend that the termination of service should be treated as voluntary abandonment of service. 4. If the termination was illegal, the question was only what would be the entitlement of the workman. The Labour Court had directed 40% of wages in spite of observing that the workman was more than 64 years on the date when he was deemed to be terminated. 4. If the termination was illegal, the question was only what would be the entitlement of the workman. The Labour Court had directed 40% of wages in spite of observing that the workman was more than 64 years on the date when he was deemed to be terminated. The award of wages at 50% for 11 years also seems inappropriate for a person who had not only crossed the age of 58 years but had also not worked. The claim of back wages is not always matter of right and unless a clear case of willingness of the workman to resume duty and deliberate act on the part of the Management to deny such employment, the workman was not entitled to back wages for the entire period. Learned counsel states that the Management is prepared to offer what Section 25-F would itself provide namely salary for one month being a notice period and 15 days salary for every year of complete service. In my view, that would itself be sufficient in a case where it was brought out through evidence that the workman had not completed 64 years on the date of his alleged termination on 8.12.1984. 5. The award of the Labour Court is modified and the petitioner-Management shall be liable to pay to the workman only the amount as to be calculated in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. Order accordingly.