ORDER

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is finally heard.

2. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the assail is to an award dated 8.8.2008 (Annexure-P/12) pronounced on 28.11.2008 whereby the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rewa, while deciding the industrial dispute on a reference made by the Labour Commissioner has decided the reference holding therein that the order passed by the respondent/Department terminating the petitioner’s services was illegal as the retrenchment was made without following the proper procedure. At the same time, it has also been observed that the petitioner is neither entitled to be reinstated in service nor to get any back-wages. However, the petitioner was found entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

3. As per the facts of the case, the petitioner was appointed as a Guard (Labour) in the office of respondent No.3 in the year 1984 and thereafter, a letter was issued by the officer of the respondent/Department on 15.10.1989 asking the petitioner to work at Chapila Chowki.

(3.1) An association of the labourers known as Bhrastachar Unmoolan Sangthan was formed, in which, the petitioner was also a member. Although, on 1.8.1990, when the petitioner’s services were terminated, then the said association raised an objection in this regard mentioning therein that the petitioner since worked with the respondent/Department from 1984 till 1.8.1990 and acquired the status of permanent employee, therefore, his services cannot be terminated in such a manner. In turn, the respondent/Department instead of reinstating the petitioner, informed the association to come to the office of the respondent/Department and collect the payment for which the petitioner is otherwise entitled.

(3.2) However, it is alleged by the petitioner that on his complaint, though an offence under section 323 of the IPC got registered against respondent No.3, but he got acquitted from the trial Court and as such, with mala fide intention, the order terminating his services has been passed. However, the office of Labour Commissioner, Indore made a reference which has been decided by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rewa by the impugned award dated 8.8.2008 granting compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that award passed by the Labour Commissioner is improper because setting aside the order terminating the petitioner’s services, when it is held that termination of services was illegal, then there was no reason for not passing an award directing reinstatement of workman. It is contended that even otherwise the compensation awarded in lieu of reinstatement to the tune of Rs.20,000/- was inadequate and, therefore, it is submitted that at the present scenario, when no direction for petitioner’s reinstatement can be ordered, the impugned award needs modification to the extent of awarding compensation in an adequate mannter. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a case reported in (2016) 1 SCC 521 [Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare and another] so also upon Civil Appeal No.5810 of 2021 [Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital And Others v. Munna Prasad Saini and another].

5. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that looking to the period of service rendered by the petitioner with the respondent/Department, the amount of compensation as awarded in favour of the petitioner was just and proper and it does not require any modification. He has submitted that there was no defect in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and according to him, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. So far as the case of Ak