JUDGMENT : SABINA, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the part of the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 20.05.2013, whereby relief of reinstatement was declined to the petitioner. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 3. Petitioner had raised an industrial dispute by serving a demand notice challenging his termination. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate Government. 4. Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 20.05.2013 held that the services of the petitioner had been terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, while declining the relief of reinstatement, the learned Tribunal held that 20 years had elapsed since the date of termination of the petitioner, therefore, it would be just and expedient to grant compensation to the petitioner. 5. In the case of Municipal Council, Dina Nagar, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and Another, 2014 (4) SCT 514, the Full Bench of this Court has laid down the following principles:- "(i) Keeping in view the recognised power of the Industrial Tribunal to direct reinstatement on account of the violation of Section 25-F of the Act the same cannot be denied solely on the ground that appointments were made by public bodies against public posts and were not in accordance with the relevant statutory recruitment rules. (ii) The settled position of law as has been sought to be addressed by this Court is that the provisions of Section 25-F being mandatory and on account of violation of the same, the retrenchment would be void ab initio as if it was never in operation and, therefore, the employee would be deemed to be continuing in service. (ii) The settled position of law as has been sought to be addressed by this Court is that the provisions of Section 25-F being mandatory and on account of violation of the same, the retrenchment would be void ab initio as if it was never in operation and, therefore, the employee would be deemed to be continuing in service. (iii) The right of reinstatement, however, is not an automatic right as such and while directing reinstatement, the Labour Court will have to take into consideration various aspects as to the nature of appointment, the availability of a post, the availability of work, whether the appointment was per se rules and the statutory provisions and the length of service and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before any award of reinstatement could follow in cases of persons appointed on a short term basis and as daily wagers and who had not worked for long period but solely on the strength of having completed 240 days, would not per se be entitled for reinstatement as such, even though the retrenchment was void. (iv) The said retrenchment being void would, however, not entitle the workman as such to qualify or claim a right for regularisation and neither by an order of reinstatement, the permanency could be granted to the said employee and only he would be held to be entitled in continuous service on the same status as he was when his services were terminated. (v) The employer would have a right to further terminate him in accordance with law by complying with the mandatory provisions and the employee having any grievance against such a termination could challenge the same in accordance with law. (vi) The discretion of the Industrial Adjudicator has thus have to be respected and the said Adjudicator has to keep in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court, as noticed above. (vii) We do not subscribe to the view that the public authorities could claim total immunity and protection from the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-B of the Act by taking resort to and shielding themselves on account of the fact that the posts were not filled up in accordance with the relevant statutory recruitment rules and, therefore, per se the workman could not claim reinstatement." 6. In the preset case, petitioner had served the respondents-management from 20.05.1992 to 19.10.1994 as a Class-IV employee. In the preset case, petitioner had served the respondents-management from 20.05.1992 to 19.10.1994 as a Class-IV employee. Admittedly, petitioner served the demand notice on 10.11.2000, that is, after six years of the date of his termination. Petitioner had served the respondents-management for about 2 years. In these circumstances, the learned Industrial Tribunal rightly held that it was a fit case where the workman-petitioner could be compensated by payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. However, the amount of compensation assessed by the Industrial Tribunal appears to be on a lower side. The Industrial Tribunal has assessed the amount of compensation as Rs. 50,000/-. Keeping in view the length of service of the petitioner it would be just and expedient to enhance the amount of compensation liable to be paid to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the impugned award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 20.05.2013 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/-. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which petitioner would be entitled to receive the said amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing of this order till realization. 8. Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.