IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 937 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.08.2010 Nirmal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. Notice of motion was issued in this case on the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the compensation awarded in this case is on the lesser side. The petitioner, who had worked with the respondent- Management from 1994 to 10.09.2001 was awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/-. Counsel for the petitioner is justified in making a grievance that this compensation is rather less. It is not disputed before me that a normal rule as adopted while computing the compensation is to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the each completed year of service. In my view, this formula cannot be uniformly applied and it would depend upon the nature of service and the emoluments Civil Writ Petition No. 937 of 2010 -2- drawn by a person whose services were terminated. In this case, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 80,000/- would be adequate considering the service rendered by the petitioner as well as the cost of litigation, which the petitioner had incurred in reaching upto this Court. The compensation as ordered be released within a period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, if not already released. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. August 02, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE