JUDGMENT

Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J.

Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants, is to the order of the learned Single Judge in CWP-15383-2017 titled Kesar Singh and others v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and another, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants, was partly allowed, and the amount of compensation was enhanced from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-, vide order dated 18.07.2017.

2. As per the version of the appellants, Kesar Singh (appellant No. 1) joined the services as a Operator with respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the Management ), in the year 1981, Kaka Singh (appellant No. 4) joined the services as helper with the Management on 25.03.1982, Jagdish Singh (appellant No. 3) and Vinod Kumar (appellant No. 2) also joined the services as helper on 01.05.1982, and 01.08.1982, respectively. The services of the appellants were terminated on 09.01.1984. Appellant No. 1, Kesar Singh, was getting monthly remunerations of Rs. 550/-, both appellant Nos. 3 and 4, i.e. Jagdish Singh and Kaka Singh were drawing monthly remuneration of Rs. 500/-; whereas appellant No. 2, Vinod Kumar was drawing a sum of Rs. 424/- per month at the time of termination of their services. They were not permitted to join on 10.01.1984. All the appellants had worked for more than 240 days in the last calendar year. Hence, they challenged their termination by way of issuing a demand notice and reference was issued in the year 1984 to the Industrial Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).

3. The Management took a plea that appellant No. 1, Kesar Singh, was engaged as apprentice. He was never in the employment of the Management . Appellant No. 2, Vinod Kumar, had worked w.e.f. 01.08.1982 and willfully left the services by participating in the strike in the beginning of September of 1983. Appellant No. 3, Jagdish Singh, joined the service on 11.05.1982 and he also wilfully left the service in September 1983 by participating in the strike. Similarly, appellant No. 4, Kaka Singh, joined on 01.07.1982 and wilfully left the service and by participating in the strike in September 1983. The strike ultimately came to an end February 1984. It is denied that the Management has ever terminated the writ petitioners. The petitioners have wilfully left services by participating in the strike.

4. However, the said reference was dismissed for non-prosecution. The matter was agitated before the High Court and the same was remanded back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the Award dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure P-12) whereby it was held that termination of the services of the appellants were in violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case remained under litigation for a long period of 30 years. Considering these facts all the appellants were awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

5. The learned Single Judge while partly accepting the prayer of the appellants observed that the question of reinstatement and continuity of service does not arise at that stage. The writ petitioners had hardly served for about 02 years of service from the years 1982-84. Therefore, the question for granting reinstatement and continuity of service does not arise. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-, considering th