IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 106 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5609 OF 2007 Ambikaprasad Matasaran Sharma ... Appellant Vs. M/s. Guru Nanak Automobiles and another .. Respondents Mr. S.S. Pathak for the appellant. Mr. B.K. Ashok for respondents. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C.: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The appellant has questioned the correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 6th December, 2007. The argument raised is that the compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement is inadequate. The appellant was entitled to full back wages and that ought to have been the criteria for awarding compensation if at all it was to be awarded in lieu of his reinstatement. He relied upon the judgment of this court in Suresh Narbharam Kachalia v. Shakti Insulated Wires Ltd. and another, 2005 II CLR 972. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the appellant was employed gainfully for the entire period during the pendency of proceedings and as such, was not entitled to any back wages and even the compensation awarded of Rs.1,50,000/- by the court concerned is unnecessary. 3. It is admitted case that services of the appellant were terminated by the respondents vide letter dated 20th February, 1985. This was challenged by the appellant by filing complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The court allowed the complaint. However, instead of granting reinstatement, the Labour Court granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. This order was challenged by the appellant in writ petition No.5609 of 2007 which, as already noticed, came to be rejected and the learned Single Judge found that the findings recorded by the Labour Court were just and fair and did not call for any interference. 4. The fact of the matter is that the services of the appellant were terminated on 20th February, 1985. His claim for setting aside the order of termination and reinstatement was allowed. However, instead of granting him full back wages, the compensation in lieu thereof was awarded at Rs.1,50,000/-. Two contentions were raised by the authorities concerned, one that the appellant was gainfully employed and secondly, that he had superannuated after attaining the age of 60 years on 2.5.2004. There is evidence on record to show that the appellant was gainfully employed and was carrying out some business. 5. The Labour Court while recording its reasons, in para 6 of the impugned order had specifically noticed that he had also started the `New India Security Service Agency', through which he supplied Security Guards to various companies and establishments. He was also running a shop namely, `Trishul' at Marol. Despite starting such business, he continued to serve with the respondents as `Pump Attendant'. 6. Based upon this, the court found it fit to deny the back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement was awarded. There is no error in the order as such but the court cannot lose sight of the fact that appellant's services were terminated in the year 1985 and the said termination was set aside by order dated 16th March, 2007. Thus, for all these years, he was contesting the litigation as well as making his earnings at his own sweet will. Of course, it would have been appropriate for the appellant to bring the fact of his earnings to the notice of the court but he chose not to disclose it and let the award be made In these circumstances, we are unable to interfere with the judgment as far as compensation in lieu of reinstatement is concerned. However, we are of the considered view that compensation awarded is inadequate and it should be enhanced which we hereby allow to the extent of Rs.2.5 lakhs. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.