JUDGMENT : Satish Kumar Mittal, J. This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing C.W.P. Nos. 2970 of 1998 and 7228 of 1999 arising from the order dated 22.8.1997 (Annexure P2) passed by the Labour Court, whereby on an application filed by the workman u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the workman was granted back wages amounting to Rs. 2,62,087/- for the period from 23.2.1990 to 31.8.1996, however, the wages for the period from 1.7.1982 to 22.2.1990 were declined. C.W.P. No. 2970 of 1998 has been filed by the Management Pepsu Road Transport Corporation challenging the grant of wages for the period from 23.2.1990 to 31.8.1996 and C.W.P. No. 7228 of 1999 by the workman (Mangal Singh) declining his prayer for wages for the period from 1.12.1983 to 22.2.1990. In the present case, the petitioner-workman had served the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation for a period of seven years when his services were terminated vide order dated 30.6.1982 w.e.f. 1.7.1982 on the ground that he remained absent from duty. The workman raised a demand vide notice dated 1.12.1983 and prayed for reinstatement with back wages. Then the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The said reference was dismissed having been withdrawn by the workman on 20.2.1990. The fresh notice of demand dated 23.2.1990 was served by the workman. The Government once again made reference on 23.8.1990. The Labour Court vide its award dated 11.2.1994 declined the reference on the ground of delay and held that the services of the workman were rightly terminated by the Management because the workman had not submitted any explanation for his absence from duty and further his failure to serve the fresh demand notice till 1990 justifies an inference that he had gone abroad and intentionally and wilfully abandoned the job. Against the said order, the workman moved an application before the Labour Court for reviewing the award. The said application was dismissed by the Labour Court vide order dated 24.3.1995. 2. The said award of the Labour Court was further challenged by the workman by filing C.W.P. No. 12167 of 1995. Against the said order, the workman moved an application before the Labour Court for reviewing the award. The said application was dismissed by the Labour Court vide order dated 24.3.1995. 2. The said award of the Labour Court was further challenged by the workman by filing C.W.P. No. 12167 of 1995. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the said writ petition was allowed on 10.4.1996 by the Division Bench of this Court by passing the following order: In view of the above legal position, we allow the writ petition and quash award Annexure P2. Termination of the service of the petitioner brought about w.e.f. 1.7.1982 is also declared illegal Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. The petitioner shall get all consequential benefits except back wages for the period between 1.7.1982 to the date of this order. For such wages, he shall be free to avail remedy u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We also make it clear that in case the petitioner initiates proceedings u/s 33-C(2) of the 1947 Act, it will be open to the respondents to plead and prove that the workman was gainfully employed during the intervening period and therefore, he is not entitled to whole or part of the back wages. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the workman was reinstated in service on 10.4.1996. In view of the aforesaid liberty granted to the workman, he initiated proceedings u/s 33-C(2) of the Act for the grant of back wages by making an application before the Labour Court. The said application was disposed of vide impugned order. 3. Before the Labour Court the claim of the workman was contested by the Management on two counts: firstly that the workman was not entitled to back wages for the period prior to the demand notice i.e. 23.2.1990; and secondly for the period after the said notice the workman had failed to prove that he remained unemployed from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement i.e. 10.4.1996 (the date of decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 12167 of 1995 whereby the award of the Labour Court was quashed and the termination of the services of the workman were held to be illegal). The Labour Court accepted the first contention of the Management and further rejected the second contention on the ground that in his statement the workman had categorically stated that during the period of his unemployment he could not find any job and remained unemployed during the said period. Both workman and Management have challenged the said order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 4. As far as the period from 1.7.1982 till 22.2.1990 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the same has been denied on the ground that the back wages could be granted only from the date of demand notice. This legal position has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the workman. Thus, in my view, the Labour Court had rightly declined the back wages prior to 23.2.1990. Hence, C.W.P. No. 7228 of 1999 filed by the workman for non-granting back wages prior to demand notice is hereby dismissed. 5. The Management has challenged the order of the Labour Court whereby the back wages were granted to the workman for the period from 23.2.1990 to 31.8.1996 on the ground that in his examination-in-chief the workman, who appeared as AW1 before the Labour Court, had not stated that he did not remain gainfully employed for the said period, therefore, the Labour Court has committed grave illegality while granting the back wages for the said period. I have gone through the statement of workman which has been annexed as Annexure P-3 with this petition. It is correct that in examination-in-chief the workman had not stated that he did not remain gainfully employed during his forced unemployment but in cross-examination he had categorically stated that during his forced unemployment he could not find any job and remained unemployed during the said period. This part of the statement of the workman cannot be ignored and the Labour Court on the basis of the said statement had rightly come to the conclusion that the workman had sufficiently established on record that he was unemployed during the said period. It is admitted position that the Management did not lead any evidence to rebut the said evidence to prove that the workman remained gainfully employed during that period. It is admitted position that the Management did not lead any evidence to rebut the said evidence to prove that the workman remained gainfully employed during that period. In view of the said finding of fact, which is based upon the evidence led by the workman, the relief of back wages for the said period has been rightly granted to the workman. In the last, learned counsel for the Corporation argued that the back wages for the aforesaid period have been awarded with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the application, i.e. 29.9.1996. Learned counsel submitted that the award of interest at the rate of 12% is highly excessive and it should be reduced. After considering the statement and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on this issue, I am of the opinion that the award of interest at the rate of 12% is excessive and therefore, I reduce it from 12% to 6%. With the aforesaid modification, C.W.P. No. 2970 of 1998 filed by the Corporation is also dismissed.