Judgment V. K. BALI J. 1. By this common order, I propose to dispose of two connected civil writ petitions bearing Nos.3664 and 3965 of 1986, as they emanate from the common impugned award, annexure P- 1, dated 10/02/1986, rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, industrial Tribunal, Faridabad. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ petition No.3664 of 1986 (Shree Ganesh synthetics Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Presiding Officer, industrial Tribunal, Faridabad ). 2. The challenge is to only a part of award, annexure P-l, dated 10/02/1986, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial tribunal, Faridabad. While upholding the departmental enquiry against the workman to be fair and proper in the matter of punishment, in view of the provisions of Sec.11-A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned industrial Tribunal proceeded to hold as follows: "after hearing the arguments of the representatives of both the parties, it is apparent that the claimants and Shri Ramesh kumar were charge-sheeted and a joint domestic enquiry was held against all three of them. The management has settled its dispute with Shri Ramesh Kumar and it was stated by the representative of the management that Shri ramesh Kumar had received the amount in full and final settlement of his claim and is no more in service. It obviously means that the management paid some amount of compensation to Shri Ramesh Kumar and they settled the dispute with him. The case of these two claimants thus cannot be discriminated by the management. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders of dismissal are set aside but their misconduct does not justify reinstatement and each claimant is granted compensation equivalent to two years wages, which they were receiving on 8/08/1981, which was the last date of their service in the management. The award is passed accordingly. " 3. As mentioned above, the challenge to the award is limited and the same pertains to granting compensation to the workman equivalent to two years wages. 4. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, contends that once it is proved that the workman had indulged in the activities prejudicial to the interest of the management and a domestic enquiry was held in a fair and proper manner, there was no question for the Industrial Tribunal to have rewarded the workman by giving him two years wages. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, contends that once it is proved that the workman had indulged in the activities prejudicial to the interest of the management and a domestic enquiry was held in a fair and proper manner, there was no question for the Industrial Tribunal to have rewarded the workman by giving him two years wages. If perhaps, the management might have not treated one of the workmen, who too along with respondent No.2-workman and one other workman was charge-sheeted by themselves giving him compensation, the contention of mr. Aggarwal could have been appreciated. However, as observed by the learned Industrial tribunal, the workman along with two others was charge-sheeted and a joint domestic enquiry was held against all the three workmen. The management settled its dispute with Shri ramesh Kumar. If the management itself has, thus, paid to one of the equally situate person as that of the workman, the learned Industrial tribunal was not unjustified in applying the provisions of Sec.11-A of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 5. Finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.