IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 14683 of 2009. Date of Decision : March 22, 2010. Surinder Singh ...... Petitioner . Versus. State of Punjab through Chief Conservator Forest Department, Punjab, Sector-17, Chandigarh, and others ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, DAG Punjab, for respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for enhancement of compensation, which has been granted by the Labour Court, Patiala, (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”), in the case of the petitioner/Workman, vide Award dated 28.04.2009 (Annexure-P-4). Counsel for the petitioner contends that a categoric finding has been returned by the Labour Court that the petitioner/Workman (hereinafter referred to as “the Workman”) had worked with the Management/respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”) from June 1999 to July 2003. He contends that the Workman had completed a little over four years of service with the Management. The Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the services of the Workman were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). However, in the light of the fact that the appointment of the Workman was not in consonance with the statutory Rules governing the service and in violation of the Articles 14 and 16 of the C.W.P. No. 14683 of 2009. -2- Constitution of India, in lieu of reinstatement, the Workman has been granted compensation of Rs. 20,000/-, which is not adequate, keeping in view the length of service of the Workman with the Management. He on this basis prays that the compensation as assessed and granted by the Labour Court deserves to be enhanced. Counsel for the Management contends that the Management had been proceeded against ex-parte after filing of the written statement. The stand of the Management was that the Workman had not worked for the period as has been claimed by him in his demand notice and in his statement before the Labour Court. She, therefore, contends that the compensation which has been granted is adequate and no interference by this Court is called for enhancement of the same. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The findings as has been recorded by the Labour Court has not been disputed as the Management had preferred not to challenge the Award dated 28.04.2009 (Annexure-P-4), passed by the Labour Court. As per the finding returned by the Labour Court, the Workman had worked with the Management from June 1999 to 11.07.2003 and, thus, has completed more than four years of continuous service with the Management. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances and also the fact that the Workman had been agitating his claim earlier through a demand notice and thereafter, before the Labour Court and now in this Court, the compensation as has been assessed by the Labour Court is inadequate. The Workman had worked with the Management for more than four years continuously and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- granted by the Labour Court deserves to be enhanced. C.W.P. No. 14683 of 2009. -3- Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the amount of compensation granted to the Workman is enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The compensation be disbursed to the Workman within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE March 22, 2010. sjks.