JUDGMENT

G.s. Sandhawalia, J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal requires consideration of the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.19035 of 2009 filed by the appellant decided on 18.01.2017. The learned Single Judge granted a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the workman which was to be paid within one month from the said date. It was also noticed that the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Patiala, Mr. Gurpal Singh Chahal was present and the order had been pronounced before him and he had accepted it as fair and he had assured that the payment would be made within one month from the date of the order.

2. The reasoning given as such for enhancing the compensation from Rs. 5,000/- as awarded by the Labour Court on 01.02.2008 (Annexure P-3) was that the employment had taken place as Pump Driver/Pump Attendant/Operator/Beldar on 02.08.1994 and the termination had taken place on 17.06.1995 as per the workman. The management claimed that he had worked upto 30.04.1995 only. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge while placing reliance upon the judgments of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & another v. Gitam Singh , 2013 (1) SCR 679 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh , (2012) 1 SCC 558 enhanced the compensation. The Division Bench judgment Municipal Council, Dina Nagar, Tehsil & District, Gurdaspur v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another, 2015 (1) PLR 765 wherein Rs. 1 lakh was held to be payable for every year's service as adequate compensation was also kept in mind.

3. Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench in Municipal Council, Dina Nagar, Tehsil & District, Gurdaspur v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another, 2015 (1) PLR 465, authored by one of us i.e G.S. Sandhawalia, J., on the reference made, which was decided by laying down the following principles:-

"48.......Thus, the following principles are laid down:-

(i)Keeping in view the recognised power of the Industrial Tribunal to direct reinstatement on account of the violation of Section 25-F of the Act the same cannot be denied solely on the ground that appointments were made by public bodies against public posts and were not in accordance with the relevant statutory recruitment rules.

(ii)The settled position of law as has been sought to be addressed by this Court is that the provisions of Section 25-F being mandatory and on account of violation of the same, the retrenchment would be void ab initio as if it was never in operation and, therefore, the employee would be deemed to be continuing in service.

(iii)The right of reinstatement, however, is not an automatic right as such and while directing reinstatement, the Labour Court will have to take into consideration various aspects as to the nature of appointment, the availability of a post, the availability of work, whether the appointment was per se rules and the statutory provisions and the length of service and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before any award of reinstatement could follow in cases of persons appointed on a short term basis and as daily wagers and who had not worked for long period but solely on the strength of having completed 240 days, would not per se be entitled for reinstatement as such, even though the retrenchment was void.

(iv) The said retrenchment being void would, however, not entitle the workman as such to qualify or claim a right for regularization and neither by an order of reinstatement, the permanency could be granted to the said employee and only he would be held to be entitled in continuous service on the same status as he was when his services were terminated.

(v) The employer would have a right to further terminate him in accordance w