JUDGMENT Krishna Murari, C.J. (Oral) - CM-4105-LPA of 2018. In view of the affidavit filed in terms of order dated 18.07.2018, the said order stands recalled and appeal stands restored to its original number. LPA-538-2018: After restoring the appeal, the same was heard on merits. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 passed by learned single Judge while disposing of the petition filed by employer/respondent whereby compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- was awarded to appellant/workman. 3. Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under. 4. Appellant/workman raised an industrial dispute by issuing demand notice dated 27.07.2005 alleging that he was employed by the Municipal Council, Gobindgarh. He worked from 12.09.2002 to 14.09.2004. His services were orally terminated with effect from 15.09.2004. The Labour Tribunal returned a finding that the workman has regularly worked with the Municipal Council for 370 days and his services have been terminated without issuing any notice, charge-sheet, payment of compensation and without holding any enquiry and, thus, answered the reference in favour of the workman and against the employer directing reinstatement with continuity of service. However, payment of back-wages was denied. 5. The award passed by the Labour Tribunal was put to challenge before this Court by the employer. The case set up before the learned single Judge was that the workman was not appointed against a substantive post after following the procedure prescribed and his services were engaged through a contractor. It was also pointed out that there was no material placed before the Labour Tribunal to show that engagement of workman was made on a substantive post after following the procedure prescribed and in the absence of any evidence to that effect the award was vitiated. 6. The learned single Judge finding that reliance placed throughout by the workman was on a document Exhibit W-3 which was a certificate issued by Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Gobindgarh, certifying that the workman has worked from 04.05.2003 to 01.07.2004 and 25.07.2004 to 29.09.2004 and his services were engaged through contractor, came to the conclusion that the workman was not entitled to reinstatement inasmuch as even if it is presumed that appointment was made by the employer it did not stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since the procedure prescribed was not demonstrated to have been followed while making the appointment. However, in order to adjust the equities between the parties, the learned single Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakhs as compensation to the workman. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 7. The issue as to whether the workman was engaged by the employer directly or through contractor is the bone of contention. However, from a perusal of the material brought on record, we do not find any evidence to substantiate the allegation that appointment of workman was made in accordance with the procedure prescribed so that it can withstand the test of Articles 14 and 16. On the contrary, the document on record i.e. certificate dated 22.10.2008, on which reliance was being placed by the workman himself, goes to show that his services were availed through contractor at D.C. rate after calling for tenders. 8. In the facts and circumstances, the workman though may not be entitled for any compensation but since the learned single Judge has awarded the same on equitable considerations, there exists no good ground for enhancement of the same as has been prayed by the appellant. It may also be pertinent to point out that even on our repeated asking no material has been placed before us which could even remotely demonstrate that the appointment of workman was made by the Municipal Council directly and not through contractor. 9. Once that is the situation, the impugned judgment rendered by learned single Judge suffers from no infirmity which may require any interference. The appeal is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed in limine.