JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. Every matter coming from the Labour Court brings a sad story of life. The present is such a case. A widowed lady serving Respondent - Rajkot Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti for long 21 years is given a go by, by an order dated 17th June 1994. She was engaged on a petty sum of Rs.300/-per month and was serving as Peon. She was transferred from one school to another school which was at a distance of 17 to 18 kms. and therefore, the poor lady could not report for duty there. Therefore, her services were terminated. The learned Judge of the Labour Court has partly allowed the Reference being Reference (LCR) No. 14 of 1996 and ordered that a lump sum compensation of Rs. 10,000/-be paid to the Petitioner (widowed lady). The learned Judge has recorded categorical finding that, 'for the reasons best known to the Respondent herein, a new case was pleaded by way of putting question in cross-examination to the present Petitioner'. This Court is of the opinion that such case was pleaded for a definite reason that is to avoid liability arising on account of illegal termination of service. It is really strange that the Respondent herein asked the Petitioner herein that, 'after her services were terminated on 17th June 1994, she was taken back in service and the poor woman, God knows, what she must have understood, answered in affirmative. Then, it was asked that, 'on your reaching the age of superannuation (60 years), your services were brought to an end. The poor woman, again said 'yes'. It was then asked that at the time of your reaching age of superannuation (at the time of bringing end of service on account of superannuation) you were paid all dues payable to you and the poor woman, with whatever understanding she had, said 'yes' to that question also. 1.1 The tragedy does not end here. The tragedy lingers further. After the aforesaid deposition in cross-examination an application exh. 42 was filed being a 'Discovery Application'. It was mentioned in that application that the applicant being of advanced age and not keeping good health, as the Respondent herein had asked the applicant in cross-examination that after 1994 she was in service, the Respondent herein be directed to produce the Attendance Register, Salary Register, the Appointment/any other order given to the Petitioner herein. It was mentioned in that application that the applicant being of advanced age and not keeping good health, as the Respondent herein had asked the applicant in cross-examination that after 1994 she was in service, the Respondent herein be directed to produce the Attendance Register, Salary Register, the Appointment/any other order given to the Petitioner herein. This application was 'Not Pressed' on the ground that all required information you can get on record by asking necessary questions to Respondent herein. 1.2 As the Respondent was able to be successful in his design, the Discovery Application was got 'Not Pressed'. A totally imaginary case was brought on record in cross-examination of the Petitioner and then it was contended that the termination was never a termination by way of penalty. It was termination on account of superannuation. 1.3 This Court is at loss as to why a public body like present Respondent should have acted in this manner and that too, in a case of a widowed lady. In fact, this matter is required to be investigated by an independent agency as to who instructed the learned advocate to put all these questions to this widowed lady. The Court would have definitely passed an order to that effect, but as the matter is old enough, this Court is of the opinion that if the lump sum compensation is increased to a reasonable amount, that will serve the ends of justice. 2. The matter requires consideration. Hence, Rule. Learned advocate Ms. Asmita V. Patel for the Respondent waives service of Rule. At the request of learned advocate for the Petitioner the matter is taken up for final hearing today, to which, the learned advocate for the Respondent has no objection. 3. In the midst of argument, the learned advocate for the Respondent submitted that question of res-judicata is a question of law and it can be agitated before this Court even in this petition. 3. In the midst of argument, the learned advocate for the Respondent submitted that question of res-judicata is a question of law and it can be agitated before this Court even in this petition. Even if she is right, the Court refuses to allow her to put any submissions on this point because, in this petition, what is under consideration of this Court is the award and order dated 14th October 2010 in Reference (LCR) No. 14 of 1996 and if the Respondent herein has not taken care to produce before the learned Judge of the Labour Court a copy of the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 6387 of 1995 dated 27th September 1996, this Court is of the opinion that the award and order passed by the learned Judge cannot be found fault with on this ground. 3.1 The learned advocate for the Respondent is not able to give any satisfactory reason as to why, these two documents i.e. Memo of Petition and Order passed below that, were not produced before the learned Judge. 3.2 The learned advocate for the Respondent submitted that no mercy is required to be shown to the Petitioner because though she is a widow, she has a married son and son and his wife both are earning. 3.3 The learned advocate for the Petitioner states in the Court that only yesterday she had a talk with the Petitioner and incidentally, she told her that, 'her son is not married'. Be that as it may, this is not what is again required to be considered by this Court. 3.4 Coming to the question of adequacy of the amount awarded, the amount awarded by way of lump sum compensation is too meager, more particularly, when, she (Petitioner) was to reach the age of superannuation on 7th July 1999, she was thrown out of service on 17th June 1994. Not only that, a deliberate attempt was made before the learned Judge of the Labour Court to present the facts in a manner, which is not befitting to a local authority. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The lump sum compensation is enhanced to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five thousand only). 4.1 The learned advocate for the Respondent submitted that Rs. 10,000/-+ Rs. 750/- towards cost is already paid. 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The lump sum compensation is enhanced to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five thousand only). 4.1 The learned advocate for the Respondent submitted that Rs. 10,000/-+ Rs. 750/- towards cost is already paid. 4.2 If that is so, the same be adjusted while paying this amount and remaining amount be paid to the Petitioner as early as possible, preferably by 2nd September 2011. 4.3 Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 5. At the end of dictation, the learned advocate for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner has prayed for the back wages to the tune of Rs. 21,600/-only. The learned advocate for the Respondent was asked to point out the same. The learned advocate for the Respondent invited attention of the Court to Para 3(E) to the petition, wherein, it is stated that, 'the learned Judge has committed an error in awarding Rs. 10,000/-only, because even the remuneration for the period from 1994 to 1999 would have been Rs. 21,600/-'. She (the Petitioner) has claimed other benefits. Therefore, this submission of the learned advocate for the Respondent is found to be not acceptable.