Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.11.2010, made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 41 of 2010, titled Kishori Lal versus H.P. State Electricity Board and others, whereby the writ petition came to be allowed and the retrenchment order of the petitioner dated 24.5.1993 was set aside, for short “the impugned judgment”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. It appears that the writ petitioner-respondent herein, who was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1980, in the respondent-Board, was retrenched from service by the respondent-Board vide order dated 24.5.1993, which became the subject matter of Original Application No. 1816 of 1997, before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The said Original Application, on the abolition of the Tribunal, was transferred to this Court and registered as CWP(T) No.41 of 2010, which came to be decided by the learned Single Judge of the Court on 18th November, 2010, subject matter of the present appeal. 3. The Writ Court, after examining pleadings and the mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short “the Act” allowed the writ petition and retrenchment order dated 24.5.1993 was quashed and set aside. The Writ Court has given details in paras 4 and 5 of the impugned judgment. 4. We have examined the pleadings and the impugned judgment, merits to be upheld, except so far it relates to back-wages w.e.f. 24.5.1993 to 22.9.1997. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the retrenchment order is dated 24.5.1993 and the writ petitioner has filed the writ petition on 22.9.1997. The petitioner has not explained the delay thus, was not entitled to back-wages, as granted by the Writ Court, i.e., from 24.5.1993 to 22.9.1997. The argument appears to be attractive for the reason that the writ petitioner has questioned the retrenchment order after the lapse of four years. 6. The petitioner has not explained the delay thus, was not entitled to back-wages, as granted by the Writ Court, i.e., from 24.5.1993 to 22.9.1997. The argument appears to be attractive for the reason that the writ petitioner has questioned the retrenchment order after the lapse of four years. 6. The apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another versus S.C. Sharma, reported in 2005 AIR SCW 377, U.P.S.R.T.C. Ltd. Versus Sarada Prasad Misra & Anr., reported in 2006 AIR SCW 3216, M/s Reetu Marbles versus Prabhakant Shukla reported in 2009 AIR SCW 7614 and Jasmer Singh versus State of Haryana and another, reported in 2015 AIR SCW 869, has laid down the principles how to grant back-wages while keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. In some cases 50% back wages was granted and in some cases 100% back-wages was granted. Applying the test in the instant case, the Writ Court has rightly quashed the retrenchment order but has fallen in an error in granting 50% back-wages to the petitioner w.e.f. 24.5.1993 to 22.9.1997 for the reasons that he has invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on 22.9.1997. 7. Viewed thus, the impugned judgment is modified as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of, alongwith pending applications, if any.