JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single judge dated 30.1.2004 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the award of the Collector dated 3.11.2001 was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows. 2. In the year 1986, the appellant was appointed in the department on 5 daily wages. He continued in service till the year 1996. Thereafter, his services were terminated. The appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court by the Appropriate Government on August 19. 1996. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the services of the appellant were terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes to Act. However, the Labour Court declined to grant the relief of reinstatement with back wages to the appellant. Instead, it directed the respondents to pay compensation to the appellant to the tune of Rs.11,500/-. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant filed the writ petition. The writ petition was, however, rejected by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the appellant workman has filed the instant appeal. 3. In so far as the question of reinstatement of the appellant and payment of back wages to him is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant is not insisting for a direction to the respondents for putting him back in service. The learned counsel is also not insisting for seeking a direction to the respondents for payment of the back wages to the appellant. However, the learned counsel submitted that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court is highly inadequate and needs to be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court to the appellant sufficient. 4. On consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Labour Court ought to have granted adequate compensation to the appellant, since he was not being reinstated and was also not being paid the back wages. It is not in dispute that the appellant worked continuously from February 1992 to October 1996; and earlier to that, he had worked in the department from the year 1986 to 1988. It is not in dispute that the appellant worked continuously from February 1992 to October 1996; and earlier to that, he had worked in the department from the year 1986 to 1988. As such the appellant had worked in the department for six years before his services were terminated in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.In the circumstances, therefore, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.75,000/- should have been awarded to the appellant by way of compensation. We order accordingly. The payment shall be made by the respondents to the appellant within a period of one month. 5. The appeal is disposed of.Appeal Disposed of As Above. *******