IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1790 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.02.2011 Naginder Singh ...Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 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 : None for the appellant. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.8.2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 11734 of 1999 by which the learned Single Judge has upheld the award of the Industrial Adjudicator so far as wrongful termination of the appellant-workman is concerned. However, the learned Single Judge has interfered with the part of the award directing re-instatement of the appellant and has, instead, ordered for payment of compensation of Rs. 35,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. The part of the order holding termination of the appellant to be unjustified is not assailed before us by the Management. The only question that would require consideration of the Court, therefore, LPA No. 1790 of 2010 [2] is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in granting compensation in lieu of the reinstatement of the workman. The incidental question that would arise is the adequacy of the quantum of compensation determined by the learned Single Judge. A reading of the order of learned Single Judge dated 6.8.2009 would go to show that the appellant had been working in the Panjab University as a Junior Engineer (Civil) w.e.f. 1.8.2006. If that be so no fault can be found with the order of the learned Single Judge in interfering with the reinstatement ordered by the learned Labour Court. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same lies within the discretion of the learned Court. Nothing has been pointed out to show that the discretion has been exercised in a manner that will call for any interference. For the aforesaid reasons we do not consider the present appeal to be fit for admission and for any further hearing. Consequently, we dismiss the same and affirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE 25.02.2011 'ravinder'