JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The present appeals bearing LPA-540 & 1770-2018 arise out of common judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP-23090-2012 titled Ram Krishan v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hissar decided on 16.01.2018.

2. The learned Single Judge modified the award of the Labour Court dated 27.08.2010 whereby compensation of only Rs.45,000/- had been given and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- which would be payable within a period of 4 months. The conditional interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the judgment was also granted in case the compensation was not paid within prescribed period. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge to enhance the compensation was that the appointment was from 01.03.1991 to 31.03.2003 and the demand notice was only served on 31.12.2005. It was also observed that the appointment was on daily wage basis and there was no right to hold the post. Reliance had been placed upon Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 to enhance the compensation while approving the dictum of the Labour Court that reinstatement was not to be granted.

3. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the claim was of an appointment in the Arawali Project in the Dadri Range with the Forest Department on 01.03.1991. The averment was that the project was closed from 31.10.1999 and the assets and liabilities were taken over by the Divisional Forest Officer (T), Bhiwani and after the abolition of the said project, he had worked with the Range Office(T), Charkhi Dadri and on 01.04.2003, he was not allowed to resume duty. Juniors were stated to have been retained and fresh hands had been appointed and accordingly, claim statement was also filed on the reference having been made to the Labour Court.

4. The stand of the State was that he had not worked for even a single date preceding the date of alleged termination from service and that he was a daily wager and could not claim regularization. The Forest Department was stated not to be falling within the definition of industry and the Arawali Project had closed since 31.10.1999 and he had not worked after November, 1994.

5. The Labour Court noticed that the workman had furnished all the details pertaining to his case but the respondents had not led evidence despite availing several opportunities and the defence had been closed by order. They had not produced the record and even application had been filed for production of the record but merely working details of the workman from the year 1992 to 1994 had been placed on record and therefore, an adverse inference was drawn for withholding the best evidence. It was noticed that there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions of notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation and resultantly, by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & another , (2009) 15 SCC 327 , Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal v. Santosh Kumar Seal & others , 2010 (6) SCC 773 and U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. & another v. Uday Narain Panday , (2006) 1 SCC 479 to grant compensation.

6. From the above background of the case, it would be clear that the workman has been successful to a large extent to shift the onus upon the Management since even an application had been filed for production of the record. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in R.M.Yellatti v. The Assistant Executive Engineer , 2006 (1) SCC 106 . Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

"15. Analyzing the above decisions of thi