ORDER : ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI, J. 1. W.P.No.60932/2010 is filed by the Management (Government) and W.P.No.63767/2009 is filed by the workman raising the challenge to very same award, dated 02.12.2008 passed by the Labour Court, Hubli in Reference No.71/1996. 2. The workman claims to have worked from March 1983 till 31.12.1984. Even when he has worked for 240 days in the given year, the Management verbally asked him not to come for the work. Contending that the denial of work amounts to termination, the workman raised the reference. The Labour Court, on examining the materials placed on its record, found that the termination order dated 31.12.1984 is liable to be quashed. On quashing it, it has awarded the compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. Smt. Vidayathi, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Management submits that the workman was not appointed against any substantive vacancy or work-load. She submits that he may have been appointed on daily wages for doing the adhoc job. She complains of 10 years' delay on the part of the workman in raising the reference. She submits that the workman has not produced any document to show that he has indeed worked for 240 days in the given year. 4. Sri. Anant P. Savadi, learned counsel for the workman submits that the Labour Court has indeed returned the categorical finding to the effect that the workman has worked for 240 days in the given year. The said finding cannot be reversed in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, so submits the learned counsel. He submits that the workman is entitled to be reinstated following the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Tapash Kumar Paul v. BSNL and another reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5816. Para 4 of the said decision is read out by him is extracted herein below: "4. It is no doubt true that a Court may pass an order substituting an order of reinstatement by awarding compensation but the same has to be based on justifiable grounds viz. (i) where the industry is closed; (II) where the employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit; (III) where the workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and/or (IV) when he has lost confidence of the Management to discharge duties. (i) where the industry is closed; (II) where the employee has superannuated or going to retire shortly and no period of service is left to his credit; (III) where the workman has been rendered incapacitated to discharge the duties and cannot be reinstated and/or (IV) when he has lost confidence of the Management to discharge duties. What is sought to be emphasised is that there may be appropriate case on facts which may be justify substituting the order of reinstatement by award of compensation, but that has to be supported by some legal and justifiable reasons indicating why the order of reinstatement should be allowed to be substituted by award of compensation." 5. He submits that the awarding of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation is on the lower side. He prays for enhancement of the compensation amount. 6. In the course of rejoinder, Smt. Vidyavathi submits that the authority relied upon by the workman has no application for the case on hand, as he is only a daily wager. 7. I do not propose to reverse the finding returned by the Labour Court for one simple reason. For the reason best known to the Management, the Government has not produced the best evidence it had. It has not produced the muster rolls. The workman has examined himself as W1 marking 39 documents in support of his claim. Amongst them, Exhibits W18 to W39 are the copies of the muster rolls and hand-receipts secured by the workman. On scrutinizing them, the Labour Court has delivered the finding that the workman has indeed worked for 240 days in the given year. The Labour Court has held that terminating the services of the claimant with effect from 31.12.1984 is not justified. 8. The only question is whether the reinstatement of the workman can be directed or the compensation-amount has to be increased? 9. The workman has taken 10 long years to raise the reference. Further, 24 years had elapsed ever since his services came to be terminated. Considering these aspects of the matter, the Labour Court cannot be found to be at fault for not directing the workman's reinstatement into the services of the Management. 10. Considering the length of the service (about 21 months) and the wages (Rs. 11/- per day), I find that the awarding of Rs.25,000/- by the Labour Court is also appropriate. 11. Considering these aspects of the matter, the Labour Court cannot be found to be at fault for not directing the workman's reinstatement into the services of the Management. 10. Considering the length of the service (about 21 months) and the wages (Rs. 11/- per day), I find that the awarding of Rs.25,000/- by the Labour Court is also appropriate. 11. But what this Court notices is that although no interim stay is granted, the Government has not satisfied the award. The award amount of Rs.25,000/- is eluding the workman for no fault or lapse on his part. He is therefore required to be compensated adequately for the delay and inconvenience suffered by him at the hands of the Management. I take judicial notice of the decline in the value of the rupee. I therefore deem it necessary to raise the rate of interest from 10% p.a. as awarded by the Labour Court, to 16% p.a. In a case of this nature, the interest would be compensatory in character. 12. In the result, I dismiss W.P.No.60932/2010 and partly allow W.P.No.63767/2009 by raising the rate of interest from 10% p.a. to 16% p.a. from the date of publication of the impugned award till the date of payment. 13. At this juncture, Smt. K. Vidyavathi prays for the retention of rate of interest at 10% p.a. I am not persuaded to accede to her prayer. As noticed earlier, the Government has not came forward to pay compensation-amount of Rs.25,000/- from 2009 till today (23-9-2016) despite there being no interim stay. In this context, it is profitable to refer to what the Apex Court has said in the case of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works reported in AIR 1979 SC 75 . Para 13 of the said judgment is extracted herein below: "13. Now, if a sacrifice is necessary in the overall interest of the industry or a particular undertaking, it would be both unfair and iniquitous to expect only one partner of the industry to make the sacrifice. Pragmatism compels common sacrifice on the part of both. The sacrifice must come from both the partners and we need not state the obvious that the labour is a weaker partner who is more often called upon to make the sacrifice. Sacrifice for the survival of an industrial undertaking cannot be a unilateral action. Pragmatism compels common sacrifice on the part of both. The sacrifice must come from both the partners and we need not state the obvious that the labour is a weaker partner who is more often called upon to make the sacrifice. Sacrifice for the survival of an industrial undertaking cannot be a unilateral action. It must be a two way traffic. The management need not have merry time to itself making the workmen the sacrificial goat. If sacrifice is necessary, those who can afford and have the cushion and the capacity must bear the greater brunt making the shock of sacrifice as less poignant as possible for those who keep body and soul together with utmost difficulty."