Judgment V.K. Ahuja, J. This a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the award passed by the learned Labour Court of Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Chandigarh dated 19.11.2008. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent(s), who filed reply. 3. The petitioner alleged that he was engaged as Mazdoor on daily wage basis by the respondent department on 16.10.1995. He alleged that his services were terminated on 9.8.1986 without giving him any notice or compensation in violation of Section (F) and Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A reference was made to the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh, who entered into the reference and held that the termination of the petitioner was illegal and there was violation of Section 25(F) of the Act. The respondent department denied that the petitioner had completed 240 days. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record placed before me. 5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that there are findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner had alleged that he had worked for more than 240 days, but the respondent did not lead any evidence and hence, the termination was held to be illegal. However, once there are findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court that the petitioner has worked for 240 days, this Court is not going to interfere with the same. The termination of the petitioner was held to be illegal and in lieu of retrenchment compensation, the learned Labour Court has granted a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The petitioner has prayed for enhancement of the compensation. The learned counsel for the respondent department had submitted at the bar that the retrenchment compensation under the provisions of the Act comes to less than Rs.50,000/-, which amount was awarded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court. This submission was not disputed at the bar during the course of arguments. Moreover in a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Dharampur Division Vs. Dhani Ram, Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) Vol. 2, 972, Rs.50,000/- was held to be a reasonable compensation in lieu of the order of reinstatement. This submission was not disputed at the bar during the course of arguments. Moreover in a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Executive Engineer, HPPWD, Dharampur Division Vs. Dhani Ram, Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) Vol. 2, 972, Rs.50,000/- was held to be a reasonable compensation in lieu of the order of reinstatement. Thus, the compensation awarded can be said to be just and adequate and calls for no interference by this Court and the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh is upheld. 6. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.