Judgment :

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No. 372 of 2001 whereby he modified the award passed by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur (for short, 'the Labour Court') in Reference No. 43 of 1996 and directed that in lieu of reinstatement with 50% back wages, the appellant herein shall be paid Rs. 87,582/- by way of compensation.

3. The appellant was employed in the services of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter described as 'the corporation') as work charge Motor Mate with effect from 5.3.1986. After seven months, the Executive Engineer of the corporation issued order dated 3.10.1986 whereby he appointed the appellant as Work Munshi in the pay scale of Rs. 350-525 for a period of three months. The same officer issued another order dated 5.2.1987 and appointed the appellant as Work Munshi in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600 for a period of three months. Though, the tenure specified in the second order ended on 4.5.1987, the appellant was continued in service till 5.7.1988 i.e., the date on which the Managing Director of the corporation issued one month's notice seeking to terminate his service by way of retrenchment. However, the implementation of that notice was stayed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No. 8723 of 1988 filed by the appellant. The writ petition was finally dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to avail remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). After two months, the Managing Director of the corporation issued notice dated 26.11.1992 for retrenchment of the appellant and 21 other workmen by giving them one month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice as per the requirement of Section 25F(a) of the Act.

4. As a sequel to withdrawal of the writ petition, the appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the Government of Punjab to the Labour Court. In the statement of claim filed by him, the appellant pleaded that the action taken for termination of his service by way of retrenchment is contrary to the mandate of Sections 25F and 25M of the Act and that there has been violation of the rule of last-come-first go inasmuch as persons junior to him were retained in service. In the reply filed on behalf of the corporation, it was pleaded that the appellant's service was terminated by way of retrenchment because the projects on which he was employed had been completed. It was also pleaded that the impugned action was taken after complying with Section 25F of the Act. However, it was not denied that persons junior to the appellant were retained in service.

5. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced by them and passed award dated 15.12.1999 for reinstatement of the appellant with 50% back wages. The Labour Court held that even though the appellant was retrenched after complying with Section 25-F of the Act, the principle of equality enshrined in Section 25G of the Act was violated and persons junior to the appellant were allowed to continue in service. This is evident from paragraph 12 of the award, which reads as under:

"However, the contention of the AR of the workman about gross violation of the principles of equality as enshrined in Section 25G of the Act is full of substance. Ved Prakash, MW1, when cross-examined, admits that as per the salary record, the workman had drawn his monthly wages from 10.3.86 to 26.11.92 regularly in every month. He admits that the workman namely Nirmal Singh, Anju Gupta, Harbans Singh mentioned in the seniority list are juniors to the workman concerned and they are still working with the respondent. He further admitted that the work is existing with the respondent against which the workman was employed. He also admits that persons who were retrenchment have been reinstated in job through the different Courts a