IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1030 of 2010 Date of Decision: 04.04.2011 Birbal ... Appellant Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. H.S.Sethi, Advocate, for the respondent No.4. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) In view of the fact that the Court had issued notice in this appeal on the limited question of the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge, the only question that has to be decided in the appeal is whether a sum of ` One lac awarded to the appellant-workman as compensation in lieu of reinstatement is adequate and justified. The learned Single Judge while quantifying the aforesaid amount of compensation had taken into account the fact that the appellant-workman had been out of employment under the management for almost two decades. The LPA No. 1030 of 2010 [2] learned Single Judge had also identified the principles on which the compensation is required to be computed and thereafter come to the aforesaid conclusion. In addition, we have noticed that the workman had admitted in his cross-examination before the learned Labour Court that after the termination of service he had taken up contract works. In the event of reinstatement the possibility of grant of back wages would have been remote as the workman was gainfully employed. That apart, even if reinstatement would have been ordered the period of service that could have been rendered by the workman would be minimum as the workman had joined service under the management in the year 1978. All the above factors have to be taken into account while deciding on the amount of compensation to be awarded. Taking into account the aforesaid factors no patent error in quantifying the compensation amount at ` One lac can be said to be disclosed. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss this appeal. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 04.04.2011 'ravinder'