JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the workman, who is aggrieved against the award of the Labour Court, Gurgaon dated 9.2.2010 whereby, he has been awarded only compensation of Rs. 25,000. Accordingly, quashing of the award is sought along with the relief of continuity of service with full back-wages along with interest @ 18% from the date of his illegal retrenchment. Counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out that while issuing notice of motion on 21.12.2010, this Court had limited his claim only to the compensation part only by issuing notice to limited extent regarding the inadequate amount of compensation. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Labour Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner had worked for more than 9 years with the respondent-department and his services were dispensed with on 31.10.1999 though, he has been appointed on 1.1.1991 as a Mali and was getting Rs. 1,901 per month as wages. The Labour Court, after examining the evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wager as per DC rates, as per his own admission and that the workman had worked in the year 1994-95 and 1998-99 and he was a daily wager for the specific project which stood closed down as per certificate (Annexure P-2) and while placing reliance upon the judgment of Divisional Forest Officer v. Jagat Ram and another, 2010 LLR 39 had directed that Rs. 25,000 be paid to him as compensation. The state has preferred no writ petition against the said award and thus, has accepted the finding that the petitioner was entitled to the compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The only issue thus, that arises is whether the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000 is sufficient for an employee who had rendered almost 10 years of service. 2. A perusal of affidavit of Sat Pal Singh, State Forest Officer, (R) Sohna Range, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gurgaon, which has been appended, would go on to show that in spite of the specific averment of the petitioner-workman that he has worked from 1.10.1991 to 31.10.1999, the department had failed to bring the said record and had only brought the record which was available. The relevant portion of his cross examination reads as under:-- I have not brought the record of the petitioner from 1.1.1991 to 31.10.1999. I have brought only that record which is available. The details of the same are mentioned in Ex. D1. I have not brought the muster rolls for January, February, March, May, November 1994, February, June, July, September in 1995, March, June to September and November in 1997, January, April to June, October to December in 1998, January to May, July, August October to December in 1999 as the same are not available. It is wrong to suggest that the management has withheld the same record deliberately. Whatever record has been provided to me, I have brought the same. 3. Thus, it is apparent that the best record has been withheld from the Labour Court and thus, an adverse inference is necessarily to be drawn against the State since the workman in his affidavit had taken a categorical stand that he had worked from 1.1.1991. The Apex Court in Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353 in a case of a daily wager, who had served for a little over two years, while modifying the award of reinstatement, allowing 25% back-wages had directed that compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000 should be granted in favour of the workman who had raised the dispute after six years. 4. In Incharge Officer and Another Vs. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 SCC 126 a daily wager, who had worked for a period of 7 years intermittently before his termination, was granted compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 keeping in view the principle of law laid down in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, (2009) 15 SCC 327 . The relevant portion reads as under:-- 7. We think that if the principles stated in Jagbir Singh and the decisions of this Court referred to therein are kept in mind, it will be found that the High Court erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently upto September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. The respondent was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently upto September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One lac) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. 8. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. Since the respondent has not chosen to appear despite service of notice, there will be no order as to costs. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that in the present case also, the workman had worked for more than 9 years, this Court is of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 25,000 is a very paltry amount which has been awarded by the Labour Court and would not even cover the costs of litigation which the workman had to fight from the year 1999 till today. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it would be in the interest of justice to enhance the amount to a sum of Rs. 75,000 in total. The award is modified and the writ petition is allowed accordingly.