JUDGMENT Z.A. Haq, J. (Oral) - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioners approached the Labour Court with complaint under Section 28 read with Section 30 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 contending that their services were illegally terminated w.e.f 17/06/2002 and prayed for directions to the employer to reinstate them with continuity of service and pay backwages. This complaint was allowed by the impugned order. However, instead of granting reinstatement and backwages, the Labour Court had directed the employer to pay compensation of Rs. 12,540/to each of the employee (complainant). The complainants have surpassed the age of superannuation. Being dissatisfied with the relief granted by the Industrial Court, the employees had filed revision application before the Industrial Court, which is allowed by the impugned order. The Industrial Court has enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 50,000/. Being dissatisfied with the relief granted by the Industrial Court, the employees have filed this petition and have prayed that the order passed by the Industrial Court be modified and appropriate relief be granted directing the employer to pay wages from the date of termination till the date on which each employee attained the age of superannuation. 3. The learned AGP has supported the impugned order pointing out that the relief is moulded by the Industrial Court rightly relying on the judgment given in the case of Assistant Engineer Rajasthan Development Corporation and another''s v. Gitam Singh reported in 2013 (5) Mah. L.J. at Page 1 . 4. The undisputed facts on record show that the petitioner no. 1 was appointed on 16/08/1982, petitioner no. 2 was appointed on 24/09/1982 and petitioner no. 3 was appointed on 16/08/1982 and all the three employees were retrenched on 17/06/2002. Thus, all the three employees were in employment for about 20 years. The Labour Court has recorded that the complainants have proved that they had worked for more than 240 days in each calender year preceding their termination and that the services of the complainants were illegally terminated without complying with the mandate of Section 25F and Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employers has accepted the findings recorded by the subordinate Courts and has not challenged it. The employers has accepted the findings recorded by the subordinate Courts and has not challenged it. Considering the fact that the employees had been in employment for about 20 years and that the services of the employees were terminated without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F and Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as held by the subordinate Courts, in my view, each employee is entitled for Rs. 2,00,000/towards compensation. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER 1. The respondents are directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs) to each of the petitioner towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. It is clarified that this amount of compensation is towards full and final settlement of the claim of each of the employee. The learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners would be entitled for the amount of gratuity. It is clarified that the entitlement of the petitioner for the amount of gratuity is not considered in these proceedings and it would be open for the petitioners to claim it in appropriate proceedings, if so advised. 2. The amount of compensation shall be paid till 05/05/2018. If the amount of compensation is not paid till 05/05/2018, the respondents will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/( Rs. Two Lakhs) to each of the petitioner, the interest being chargeable from 01/10/2013 till the amount is paid to each of the petitioner. 3. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.