JUDGMENT : Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. The instant writ petition has been filed impugning the award dated 23.11.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh whereby termination of the services of the petitioner-workman has been held to be illegal and he has been awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 7,500/- while declining the relief of reinstatement. Mr. K.L. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner workman would submit that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Labour Court as regards 240 days of service having been completed in the preceding 12 months from the date of termination i.e. 1.1.1997 It has been submitted that even the plea of the Management that the workman had abandoned the job w.e.f. 1.1.1997 has not been accepted and has been termed as an afterthought and since neither retrenchment compensation was paid nor any notice pay was given, Labour Court had held that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). Learned counsel would argue that compliance of Section 25-F of the Act was mandatory and noncompliance thereof renders the retrenchment of an employee a nullity and the necessary consequence would be that the petitioner-workman was entitled to continue in employment as if his services had not been terminated. It is contended that the Labour Court has gravely erred in denying the relief of reinstatement. In support of such contention, judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192 , and Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1, Panipat, Haryana, 2010 (3) SCT 319 have been placed reliance upon. It has also been argued that the Labour Court in the impugned award has considered the petitioner workman to have rendered service as Beldar/Majdoor on daily wage basis for the period 12.1.1995 to 31.12.1996, whereas the petitioner-workman had continued in service till 26.6.2000. Mr. Arora would submit that w.e.f. 1.1.1997, the services of the petitioner workman had been placed under a contractor without his knowledge and such service till 26.6.2000 would be construed to be under the respondent-Department itself and his services were terminated on 27.6.2000 by the Junior Engineer concerned. Towards such assertion, learned counsel would submit that the Management had admitted the same in the reply submitted to the statement of claim. 2. Towards such assertion, learned counsel would submit that the Management had admitted the same in the reply submitted to the statement of claim. 2. Another limb of the argument raised is that the Labour Court has erroneously denied relief of re-instatement being weighed by the fact that the demand notice had been served after delay of about 3-1/2 years by taking the date of termination as 1.1.1997 and ignoring the admission on behalf of the Management that services of the petitioner-workman were terminated on 27.6.2000 and within a month's time thereafter, the demand notice dated 25.7.2000 had been served. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the award dated 23.11.2009 has been passed on due appreciation of evidence adduced on record and would not call for any interference by the writ Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned State counsel would contend that the petitioner-workman had been engaged only on daily wage basis and had worked under the respondent-Department from 12.1.1995 to 31.12.1996, and that too, with breaks and as such, even if there be violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, he would not be entitled to the relief of re-instatement. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 5. In the impugned award, the Labour Court has referred to the testimony of witness of the Management i.e. MW 1 who admitted that in the reply filed by the Department before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh, copy at Exhibit W2, the workman had worked for 266 days from April 1996 to December 1996. As such, a finding of fact has been recorded by the Labour Court upon due appreciation of evidence as regards the petitioner-workman having worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months to be reckoned from the date of termination i.e. 31.12.1996. Labour Court has further noticed that the Management had not placed on record any document whereby the workman had been called upon to rejoin duties in the month of January, 1997 and as such, the plea of the employer as regards workman having abandoned the job has been discarded. Concededly, neither any notice was given nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination. As such, finding of the Labour Court of violation of Section 25-F of the Act is without fault. Concededly, neither any notice was given nor any retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination. As such, finding of the Labour Court of violation of Section 25-F of the Act is without fault. Even otherwise, the respondent-Department has chosen not to lay a challenge to such finding by way of impugning the award dated 23.11.2009. 6. Labour Court has also taken a view that there has been no violation of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act on the reasoning that the workman had led no evidence as regards any junior having been retained in service. This Court does not find any infirmity even with regard to such view. 7. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner-workman that the Management in its pleadings had admitted with regard to his services having been terminated on 27.6.2000 by the Junior Engineer concerned is misconceived. The statement of claim filed by the petitioner-workman has been placed on record at Annexure P2. In para 2 of the statement of claim, the petitioner workman had averred that after his services having been terminated w.e.f. 1.1.1997, he had been kept in service and had been paid salary by the staff members of the respondent-Management and it is only subsequently that he became aware that his services had been placed under some private contractor. It was further averred in para 2 that the petitioner-workman had continued to serve in this fashion from 1.1.1997 to 26.6.2000 when Junior Engineer of the Department, namely, Prem Jyoti Arora had terminated his services on 27.6.2000. The reply of the respondent-Management to the statement of claim has been placed on record and appended as Annexure P3 along with the instant petition. Para 2 of the reply reads in the following terms: "That the contents of para 2 of the statement of claims are false and baseless hence vehemently denied. The workman was never kept in service after 1.1.1997 and terminated on 27.6.2000 by any Junior Engineer concerned." 8. A perusal thereof would reveal that the stand taken by the Management was clear and categoric to the effect that the workman had never been kept in service after 1.1.1997 and neither his services were terminated by any Junior Engineer on 27.6.2000. A perusal thereof would reveal that the stand taken by the Management was clear and categoric to the effect that the workman had never been kept in service after 1.1.1997 and neither his services were terminated by any Junior Engineer on 27.6.2000. The assertion, as such, on behalf of the petitioner-workman to have continued in service under the respondent-Department beyond 1.1.1997 and till 26.6.2000 proceeds on a clear misreading of the pleadings on record. 9. The only question that now survives for adjudication is as to whether petitioner-workman having served as a daily wager Beldar from 12.1.1995 to 31.12.1996 would be entitled to the relief of re-instatement in a situation where there has been noncompliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act? 10. Precisely, the same very question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asst. Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013) 5 SCC 136 , and it was held as under: "In our view, Harjinder Singh and Devinder Singh do not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement must follow. This Court found in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong assumption that the initial employment of the employee was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short period, this Court in long line of cases has held that the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute." 11. In the present case, the conceded position is that the petitioner-workman had been engaged as a Beldar on daily wages. Such engagement was not in pursuance to any regular recruitment process having been followed. The service rendered by the petitioner-workman is for a period of less than 2 years. In the present case, the conceded position is that the petitioner-workman had been engaged as a Beldar on daily wages. Such engagement was not in pursuance to any regular recruitment process having been followed. The service rendered by the petitioner-workman is for a period of less than 2 years. Even the demand notice dated 25.7.2000 had been issued after a period of almost 3-1/2 years from the date of termination i.e. 31.12.1996. Under such circumstances, the judicial discretion has been exercised rightfully by the Labour Court while declining the relief of re-instatement to the petitioner-workman. 12. The benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court in Anoop Sharma's case (supra) would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner-workman in the light of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal, AIR 2014 SC 1188 , wherein the view taken in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and Another, (2009) 15 SCC 327 , was affirmed. The relevant observations in Jagbir Singh's case (supra) which met the approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhurumal's case (supra) were in the following terms: "It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decision reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice." 13. A Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 890 of 2014 titled as B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya v. Mukesh Kumar and others, decided on 1.7.2014, has followed the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Bhurumal's and Gitam Singh's cases (supra) and as such, modified the award of the Labour Court ordering the re-instatement in service of daily wager along with 50% backwages and has granted compensation instead. 14. 14. In view of the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any basis that would warrant interference in the view taken by the Labour Court in the impugned award with regard to declining the relief of re-instatement to the petitioner-workman. 15. However, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation of Rs. 7,500/- awarded to the petitioner-workman is paltry and much on the lower side. 16. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh, 2012 (1) S.C.T. 641 , the Apex Court had granted compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to each of the workmen when they had worked on daily wage basis for a period slightly more than 240 days and upon their termination having been set aside on account of violation of Section 25-F of the Act. In the case of Bhurumal (supra), the termination of the daily wager had taken place more than 11 years back and even though he had claimed to have worked over a period of 15 years, the Apex Court had noticed that there was no direct evidence forthcoming with regard to 15 years service having been rendered and had awarded compensation of Rs. 3 lacs. 17. Division Bench of this Court in B.P.S. Mahila Vishwavidyalaya (supra) had awarded a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs to a daily wage Sweeper who had rendered service for a period of 1-1/2 years and whose termination had been found in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Following the aforenoticed judicial precedents, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Labour Court in the impugned award from Rs. 7,500/- to Rs. 2 lacs. 18. But for such modification as regards enhancement of compensation from Rs. 7,500/- to Rs. 2 lacs, the impugned award dated 23.11.2.009 at Annexure P6 is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed. It is directed that the enhanced compensation shall be paid and released to the petitioner-workman within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 8% per annum. Petition dismissed.