JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5982 of 2010 dated 07.10.2016, vide which learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition so filed by the present appellant while setting aside the award which stood assailed before it by the present appellant granted the following relief in favour of the respondent-workman:- “52. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, present petition is allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below is quashed and set aside. However, at this stage, it may be noticed that the petitioner-Company in the instant petition has submitted that it had made an alternate submission before the learned Tribunal below that without conceding that the inquiry is just, fair and proper, if Court comes to the conclusion that the inquiry is bad then respondent-workman be given compensation in lieu of reimbursement. Relevant portion of ground (r) of the petition is reproduced hereinbelow: “(r) ……The petitioner company had also submitted as an alternate arguments before the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court that without conceding that the enquiry is just fair and proper but if the court comes to the conclusion the enquiry is bad then petitioner be given compensation in lieu of reimbursement. ….” 53. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid, this Court, keeping in view the fact that the respondent-workman has uninterruptedly worked w.e.f. June, 1989 till 19.1.1999 i.e. about 10 years deems it fit to award one time fair compensation amounting to Rs.3.5 lacs in terms of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tota Ram vs. Belliss India (Private) Limited, (2016)6 SCC 406 case. Accordingly the petitioner-Company is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3.5 lacs to the respondent-workman by way of a fair compensation in lieu of 10 years service rendered by him. 54. All the interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.” 2. Accordingly the petitioner-Company is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3.5 lacs to the respondent-workman by way of a fair compensation in lieu of 10 years service rendered by him. 54. All the interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that following reference was made by the appropriate Government to learned Labour Court for the purpose of adjudication:- “Whether the termination of services of Shri Om Prakash ex worker by the management of M/S, Cosmo Ferrities Ltd. Parwanoo, District Solan, HP w.e.f. 19.1.1999, without compliance of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by holding the enquiry ex parte without affording the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the worker in consonance with the principles of fair-play and natural justice, is legal and justified? If not to what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation, Shri Om Prakash is entitled to?” 3. As per the claimant before learned Labour Court, he joined the service of the present appellant-company in June, 1989 and continued to work as such till 19.01.1999 when he was dismissed from service, which dismissal of his from service was bad in law as the same was in violation of the statutory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Domestic inquiry so conducted was just an eye wash. Chargesheet issued to the workman vide communication dated 01.11.1998 was biased, unfair and vague and was in English language rather than vernacular. Neither any document nor list of witnesses were supplied to the workman alongwith the said chargesheet. Charges related to some kind of strike etc. which was beyond the scope of jurisdiction of the management. In the chargesheet, management itself had declared the strike to be illegal for the purpose of framing charges against him which could not have been done. Inquiry Officer appointed to enquire against the charges levelled against the workman was a Senior Manger of the factory itself who was appointed by the management just to ensure that outcome of the inquiry was in favour of the management. Inquiry Officer conducted the proceedings without settlement of any procedure and no opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. Witnesses examined by the management were partial and no independent witnesses were examined by the management to prove its case. 4. Inquiry Officer conducted the proceedings without settlement of any procedure and no opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. Witnesses examined by the management were partial and no independent witnesses were examined by the management to prove its case. 4. The contention of the workman so putforth by him by way of his claim, was refuted by the management. As per the management, inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer in just, fair and proper manner by following the principles of natural justice. No objection at any stage was raised by the workman about the conduct of the inquiry in English. He was supplied the relevant documents as well as list of witnesses alongwith the chargesheet and none of the objections as were mentioned, were raised by the workman during the course of inquiry. 5. On the basis of pleadings, Learned Labour Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the termination of the petitioner is illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR 3. Whether termination was ordered by respondent after holding a fair and legal enquiry as alleged? OPR 4. Relief. 6. On the basis of the material placed on record by the respective parties before learned Labour Court, the following findings were returned to the issues so framed by it:- Issue No. 1: Yes. Issue No. 2: No. Issue No. 3: No. Relief : Reference answered in favour of the petitioner, per operative part of award. 7. Learned Labour Court held that the official who was appointed as Inquiry Officer, namely, Yatish Khurana was not examined as a witness by the management to substantiate its contention that the inquiry against the workman was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Learned Labour Court also held that in the absence of Inquiry Officer having been produced as witness before it, the inquiry proceedings placed on record could not be said to have been proved in accordance with law. It further held that perusal of inquiry proceedings demonstrated that the workman had not been made aware that he had the right to obtain the services of a defence assistant in order to defend himself in the inquiry proceedings. It further held that perusal of inquiry proceedings demonstrated that the workman had not been made aware that he had the right to obtain the services of a defence assistant in order to defend himself in the inquiry proceedings. Learned Labour Court also held that it stood proved that the Inquiry Officer had not made the workman aware about the procedure which he (Inquiry Officer) was going to follow while conducting the inquiry. Learned Labour Court also held that there was nothing on record from which it could be inferred that the workman agreed that the inquiry proceedings be conducted in English or that he understood the said language. It also held that the management had not placed on record any evidence from which it could be inferred that the workman understood English. Learned Labour Court further held that it stood proved on record that the workman had studied upto third class and in these circumstances, great prejudice had been caused to the workman by the mode and manner in which the inquiry was conducted including the fact that the same was conducted in English. Workman was not apprised of the fact that he had the right to engage a defence assistant to defend him in the departmental proceedings. Learned Labour Court also held that copies of the proceedings were not supplied by the Inquiry Officer to the workman and even the chargesheet was not accompanied by any documents or list of witnesses. Neither the workman was afforded opportunity to examine his witness as he was unable to read the inquiry proceedings given to him. It also held that a perusal of chargesheet Ext. PB demonstrated that no documents or list of witnesses stood supplied to the workman. Same also demonstrated that it was not clear that who were the persons who made complaint to the management against the workman. Learned Labour Court also held that the records demonstrated that one S.C. Katoch had conducted inquiry proceedings on behalf of the management, whereas no permission was on record for having permitted the management to engage S.C. Katoch to represent it in the inquiry proceedings. Learned Labour Court also held that the records demonstrated that one S.C. Katoch had conducted inquiry proceedings on behalf of the management, whereas no permission was on record for having permitted the management to engage S.C. Katoch to represent it in the inquiry proceedings. On these basis, it was held by learned Labour Court that the inquiry proceedings as were held against the workman were bad in law and it further held that there was no compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such, termination of the petitioner was illegal and unjustified. Learned Labour Court granted the following relief to the claimant: “As a sequel to my findings on the aforesaid issues, the claim of the petitioner is allowed as a result of which the dismissal/ termination of the petitioner, from service, vide order dated 19.1.1999, Ex. RH, is set aside and it is ordered that he (petitioner) be reinstated in service with seniority and continuity alongwith full back wages, from the date of his illegal termination i.e. w.e.f. 19.1.1999. Consequently, the reference stands answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for publication in official gazette. File, after completion be consigned to records.” 8. Vide judgment dated 07.10.2016, learned Single Judge quashed the award so passed by learned Tribunal. It was held by learned Single Judge that the award passed by learned Tribunal was perverse and not based upon the material available on record. Learned Single Judge held that learned Tribunal erred in conducting that irregularities were committed by the Inquiry Officer while conducting disciplinary proceedings. Learned Single Judge held that the workman had never objected to the appointment of Yatish Khurana as Inquiry Officer. The workman had participated on each date of the inquiry and had signed the proceedings therein without any objection. Learned Single Judge also held that the records demonstrated that the contention of the workman that the proceedings were held in English to cause prejudice to him was an after thought. Learned Single Judge also held that the findings recorded by learned Tribunal to the effect that no sufficient opportunity was granted to him was also incorrect and records demonstrated that reasonable opportunity in this regard was granted to the workman. Learned Single Judge also held that the findings recorded by learned Tribunal to the effect that no sufficient opportunity was granted to him was also incorrect and records demonstrated that reasonable opportunity in this regard was granted to the workman. On these basis, learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the award passed by learned Tribunal. However, before parting with the judgment, learned Single Judge held that the petitioner-company had mentioned in the petition itself that it had made an alternative submission before learned Tribunal that without conceding that the inquiry was just, fair and proper, if Court comes to the conclusion that the inquiry is bad then respondent-workman be given compensation in lieu of reimbursement. Thereafter, learned Single Judge by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tota Ram Vs. Belliss India (Private) Limited, (2016)6 SCC 406 , directed the petitioner-company to pay an amount of Rs.3.5 Lacs to the respondent-workman as fair compensation in lieu of 10 years service rendered by him to the company. Directions issued to this effect by learned Single Judge primarily stand assailed by way of this appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. 10. It is not in dispute that the respondent-workman had uninterruptedly worked with the appellant-company with effect from June 1989 till 19.01.1999. Taking into consideration the fact that the workman had put in uninterrupted service for more than 10 years service with the petitioner-company. Learned Single Judge had assessed an amount of Rs.3.5 Lacs to be fair compensation in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra to compensate the workman. Relief was so granted by learned Single Judge in view of the averments which were made in the writ petition by the present appellant. 11. A perusal of the writ records demonstrate that following averments were made by the petitioner-company in Para-5(r): “That the findings of the Labour Court cum-Industrial Tribunal is also bad as it has also failed to appreciate that the services of the petitioner stood dispensed with on 19.1.1999 after conducting just, fair and proper enquiry. It is submitted that between 1999 to 2010 there has been lot of improvement in the technology and the process employed by the petitioner company. It is submitted that between 1999 to 2010 there has been lot of improvement in the technology and the process employed by the petitioner company. Further also there has been complete loss of confidence and faith in the respondent No. 2. The petitioner company had also submitted as an alternate arguments before the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court that without conceding that the enquiry is just fair and proper but if the court comes to the conclusion the enquiry is bad then petitioner be given compensation in lieu of reimbursement and even cited the law to the said effect i.e. 2005 LLR 132 SC and 2004 (103) FLR 693 Raj HC. The said law has been totally ignored. The findings are bad which ought to be quashed and set aside.” 12. This demonstrates that the appellant-company was not averse to the payment of compensation in lieu of reimbursement to the claimant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tota Ram Vs. Belliss India (Private) Limited supra had directed the respondent therein to pay an amount of Rs.2.5 Lacs to the appellant-workman in full and final settlement so that the appellant-workman may not be reinstated with back wages. 13. Now taking into consideration the fact that the pleadings as in the writ petition demonstrate that the petitioner-company was not averse to payment of compensation to the workman in lieu of reimbursement and further that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognizes the payment of one time settlement between the employer and employee, in our considered view, direction passed by learned Single Judge to the effect that the workman was compensated by payment of lumpsum amount of Rs.3.5 Lacs in lieu of 10 years service rendered by him with the appellant-company can neither be said to be an unjust order nor it can be said that the amount of compensation so ordered to be paid by learned Single Judge is either exorbitant or unreasonable. The amount has been so assessed by learned Single Judge taking into consideration the fact that the workman had served the appellant-company for more than 10 years. 14. According to us, the amount of compensation so assessed by learned Single Judge besides being fair and reasonable is also just taking into consideration the totality of the facts of the case in hand. 15. 14. According to us, the amount of compensation so assessed by learned Single Judge besides being fair and reasonable is also just taking into consideration the totality of the facts of the case in hand. 15. Therefore, in view of above discussion as we do not find any infirmity with the judgment so passed by learned Single Judge, the same is accordingly upheld, whereas the present appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.