IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 768 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 24, 2009 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Patiala Division, Patiala. … Appellant Versus Harvinder Singh and another. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand. Present : Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant could not contest the conclusion drawn by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, wherein the Tribunal by its award dated 09.11.2006 had concluded, that the termination of the services of the respondent – workman was in violation of the mandate of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is in the background of the aforesaid conclusion, that we have to examine the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that the respondent – workman should not have been awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/-, and that the aforesaid compensation is L.P.A. No. 768 of 2009 (O&M) excessive and disproportionate. It is not possible for us to accept the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, inasmuch as the appellant may have had to pay much more to the respondent – workman in terms of the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 09.11.2006 in the nature of back wages itself, whereby the Industrial Tribunal had ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. In view of the fact that the main appeal has been dismissed on merits, we find no justification for passing a separate order on the application for condoning the delay (in filing the instant appeal). ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge August 24, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2