Judgment : TAPAN SEN. J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of valid service of notice upon the Respondent No. 2 as is evident from the Office Note dated 6/11/2001, no body has appeared on their behalf. Consequently the Writ application is disposed of ex pane and in their absence. ( 2 ) THE Writ Petitioner has challenged a portion of the award dated 28/12/1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, dhanbad in Reference Case No. 6 of 1993, whereby and whereunder after having held that the termination of services of Umesh Singh was valid, legal and justified, he proceeded to grant compensation to him to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) which was required to be paid by the petitioner within three months from the date of pronouncement of the award. ( 3 ) I have perused the award and I find that the Presiding Officer has not given any reason as to why he has come to conclusion that compensation was required to be paid. On the contrary after having dealt with the issue in detail he came to a specific conclusion that the inquiry was fair and proper and that the termination of the services of the concerned workman by the management was legal, valid, justified and therefore he held that the concerned workman: was not entitled to get any relief. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER the Presiding Officer takes a peculiar stand and states that only because the workman had served the management honestly since long, therefore, he thought it proper to direct the management to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) in the shape of compensation. Compensation is not to be doled out in routine course as if it is charity. Compensation is paid only when the person required to pay compensation is found to have defaulted or committed some error or to have inflicted either agony or torture upon the person/property concerned. Therefore, it was not proper on the part of the Labour Court to direct payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees-twenty five thousand ). Compensation is paid only when the person required to pay compensation is found to have defaulted or committed some error or to have inflicted either agony or torture upon the person/property concerned. Therefore, it was not proper on the part of the Labour Court to direct payment of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees-twenty five thousand ). ( 5 ) IN that view of the matter the impugned award dated 28/12/1999 (pronounced on 17/10/2000) in Reference Case No. 6 of 1993 in so far as it relates to payment of compensation, is hereby set aside and quashed and the award shall stand modified to that extent. ( 6 ) WITH the aforesaid observations this writ Application is disposed off. However, there shall be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .