Judgment H. S. BEDI, J. 1. The workman-appellant was appointed as a Technician Grade-II in the PGI on May 7, 1981 on ad hoc basis initially for a period of six months. His services were terminated w. e. f. April 30, 1984 vide order dated April 27, 1984 as per terms and conditions of the letter of appointment. He challenged this order before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the petitioners service had been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, but declined reinstatement to the appellant and instead granted a compensation of Rs.4,000/-in lieu thereof. The award of the Labour Court was challenged by the workman-appellant by way of Civil Writ Petition No.3723 of 1986, which too has been dismissed on May 21, 1993 by the learned single Judge holding that as the petitioner had been appointed for a specific period and the said period had expired even assuming for the sake of argument that there had been a violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, compensation alone was the proper relief under the circumstances. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single judge. 2. We have head Mr. Dinesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record. 3. We too are of the opinion that the workman appellant would have been gainfully employed after his services had been terminated in 1984. As he has statedly attained the age of superannuation, the question of reinstatement does not arise. We are, however, of the opinion that the amount of Rs.4000/-awarded by the Labour Court as compensation is clearly inadequate and some increase is called for. We accordingly increase the amount of compensation from Rs.4000/- to Rs.20,000/-With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.