JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, hence are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common Judgment. 2. Admitted facts of the case are that petitioners alongwith one Krishan Kumar, remained engaged as daily rated mazdoors with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (here-in-after referred to as ‘BSNL’) since November, 1995 to 23.08.1996. Thereafter their services were dispensed with. On raising demand under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by petitioners as well as Krishan Kumar appropriate authority referred the matter for adjudication of Industrial Dispute to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Labour Court’) by framing following reference:- “Whether the action of the management of Distt. Manager Telecom, Mandi in terminating the services of Shri Geeta Nand w.e.f. 24.8.96 without any notice and payment of retrenchment compensation is illegal and unjustified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date”? 3. Labour Court, in all references held that services of petitioners and Krishan Kumar were terminated in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and as such their termination was illegal and unjustified. 4. In case of petitioners, Labour Court rejected their claim of reinstatement but awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each of them for their illegal and unjustified retrenchment, however in case of Krishan Kumar, vide award dated 17.01.2007 (Annexure P-6), Labour Court directed his reinstatement with all service benefits except back wages. 5. Against award directing reinstatement of Krishan Kumar, BSNL filed CWP No. 297/2008 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh which was dismissed on 13.12.2011. LPA No.78/2012 preferred by BSNL was also dismissed by the High Court on 12.6.2012. 6. BSNL had preferred Special Leave Petition No. 37585/2012 in Civil Appeal No. 6272 of 2014 titled Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Krishan Kumar decided on 7th July, 2014, the Apex Court did not consider it appropriate to direct BSNL to reinstate workman after long lapse of time and in lieu of reinstatement, awarded compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs to Krishan Kumar. Order passed by the Apex Court, placed on record by learned counsel for petitioner reads as under:- “Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Order passed by the Apex Court, placed on record by learned counsel for petitioner reads as under:- “Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think it appropriate to direct reinstatement after such a long lapse of time. However, the appellant shall give compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to the respondent. We have been apprised at the bar that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has been deposited before the Registry of this Court. The same amount shall be paid to the respondent along with interest accrued thereon. Apart from the said sum, a further sum of Rs.1 lakh shall be paid to the respondent within a period of six weeks hence. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs”. 7. In case of petitioners so far as the petitioners are concerned, BSNL, accepting findings of Labour Court that termination is in violation of provisions of the Act, did not assail the award passed by the Labour Court rather, had offered payment of Rs.25,000/- each to petitioners. 8. In instant petitions, petitioners have assailed award passed by Labour Court whereby their plea for reinstatement was rejected and only a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to each petitioner was awarded for their retrenchment in violation of provisions of the Act. These petitions have been filed claiming parity with Krishan Kumar, seeking direction to their reinstatement with all service benefits as were granted by Labour Court to Krishan Kumar. 9. BSNL had not assailed award passed by Labour Court in favour of petitioners rather it had offered payment of amount of compensation i.e. Rs.25000/- awarded by Labour Court to petitioners in compliance of impugned award. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that though for illegal and unjustifiable retrenchment in violation of the Act, petitioners are entitled for reinstatements alongwith consequential benefits including back wages but in view of order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6272 of 2014, petitioners will be satisfied in case BSNL is directed to pay compensation to them for their illegal and unjustifiable retrenchment as has been awarded by the Apex Court in case of Krishan Kumar in identical facts and circumstances. 11. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate, under instructions of Ms. 11. Mr. Ashok Sharma, Senior Advocate, under instructions of Ms. Sukarma Sharma, Advocate, submits that compensation granted in Krishan Kumar’s case is highly excessive and even the Apex Court has not followed the same course in its subsequent pronouncements and compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs to a workman who had served hardly for 240 days with BSNL is not entitled for such a huge amount of compensation. He submits that amount of compensation awarded by Labour Court is just and fair and does not warrant any interference of this Court and the petitioners are not entitled for anything more than that. 12. Claim of reinstatement of petitioners rests upon the decision in case of Krishan Kumar. Now Krishan Kumar’s case has been decided finally by the Apex Court wherein direction to reinstatement stands set aside and he has been held entitled only for a compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs for his illegal and unjustified retrenchment. Present petitions are also squarely covered by the pronouncement of Apex Court passed in Krishan Kumar’s case. 13. In a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation has to be adopted. Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare legislation and is required to be interpreted so as to ensure extension of benefits to the employees and not to deprive them of the same which are available under the Act. When two views are possible on its applicability to a given set of employees, that view which furthers the legislative intention should be preferred to the one which would frustrate it. (See Transport Corporation of India Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corpn. and another, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 332 , Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, (2015) 1 SCC 142 , Union of India and another Vs. Surendra Panday, (2015) 13 SCC 625 and Royal Western India Turf Club Limited Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and others (2016) 4 SCC 521 ). 14. This Court is not oblivious that the Apex Court in numerous matters has held that normally in case of illegal and unjustifiable termination of service reinstatement of workman should be directed. Surendra Panday, (2015) 13 SCC 625 and Royal Western India Turf Club Limited Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and others (2016) 4 SCC 521 ). 14. This Court is not oblivious that the Apex Court in numerous matters has held that normally in case of illegal and unjustifiable termination of service reinstatement of workman should be directed. However it is also settled that in appropriate cases keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case including the time gap between termination and decision of the dispute, the court can award just and fair compensation in lieu of reinstatement and in fact, the Apex Court, in case of Krishan Kumar followed the same course. (See Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and other (2010) 6 SCC 773 , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558 and Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another Vs. Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136 ). 15. The case of petitioners is not only similar but identical to the case of Krishan Kumar who was also engaged alongwith petitioners in the same telecom circle and also terminated alongwith them on one and the same day. Plea of excessive amount of compensation is not also sustainable for the reason that the Apex Court in the identical facts and circumstances has awarded compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs to one out of the five workmen engaged and terminated together. Award of lesser amount of compensation in subsequent cases can also be no ground for granting lesser compensation to petitioners than Krishan Kumar as amount of compensation may differ in different cases in the given facts and circumstances of those cases. Compensation in each case is to be determined on the basis of merit of that case. 16. In instant case one, out of five identical workmen in identical situation, has been awarded a compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs by the Apex Court in the month of July 2014, 3 years earlier to date. Therefore, I find no reason to award lesser compensation to petitioners. 17. In view of above discussion claim of petitioners for reinstatement is rejected, however amount of compensation awarded to them is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.3.00 lakhs each which shall be paid by BSNL to petitioners latest by 31st July, 2017. Therefore, I find no reason to award lesser compensation to petitioners. 17. In view of above discussion claim of petitioners for reinstatement is rejected, however amount of compensation awarded to them is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.3.00 lakhs each which shall be paid by BSNL to petitioners latest by 31st July, 2017. Needless to say any amount paid by BSNL and received by petitioners in compliance of direction of Labour Court shall be deducted from Rs.3.00 lakhs. On failure to make payment on or before 31st July, 2017, petitioners shall also be entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petitions in this Court. 18. Writ petitions are disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as costs.