JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed Award, dated 29.11.2016, passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Reference Petition No. 77/2015, titled as Shri Dev Raj vs. Executive Engineer, vide which, the Reference made to the learned Court below by the appropriate Government was answered in the following terms: “22. As sequel to my findings on foregoing issues, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner in lieu of the reinstatement in services as well as the other consequential service benefits. Amount of compensation so awarded will be paid by the respondent to the petitioner within four months from today, failing which the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of award till the date of its realization. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner-workman (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) before this Court was engaged as a Daily Waged Beldar by the Executive Engineer, HP PWD, Killar Division, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. in the year 2001. He continued to serve as such till June, 2004, when according to him, his services were illegally terminated without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Feeling aggrieved, an industrial dispute was raised by the workman, which resulted in the following Reference being made by the appropriate Government to the learned Reference Court for adjudication: “Whether the industrial dispute raised by the worker Shri Dev Raj S/o Shri Roshan Lal R/o Village Tundru, P.O. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. before the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. vide demand notice date nil (received in Labour Office Chamba dated on 25.05.2012) regarding his alleged illegal termination of service during June, 2004, suffers from delay and latches? If not, whether termination of the services of Shri Dev Raj S/o Shri Roshan Lal, R/o Village Tundru, P.O. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during June, 2004 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, whether termination of the services of Shri Dev Raj S/o Shri Roshan Lal, R/o Village Tundru, P.O. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, Killar Division, H.P.P.W.D. Killar, Tehsil Pangi, District Chamba, H.P. during June, 2004 without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to from the above employer?” 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court framed the following issues: “1. Whether the industrial dispute raised by petitioner vide demand notice dated nil qua his termination of service during June, 2004 by respondent suffers from the vice of delay and laches as alleged? If so, its effect? OPP 2. Whether termination of services of the petitioner by the respondent during June, 2004 is/was illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP 3. If issue No. 2 is proved in affirmative, to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR 5. Relief.” 5. On the strength of the pleadings as well as evidence which was led in support of their respective pleadings by the parties, the issues so framed, were answered as under: “Issue No. 1: Yes. Issue No. 2: Yes. Issue No. 3: Discussed. Issue No. 4: No. Relief: Petition is partly allowed awarding compensation Rs. 50,000/- per operative part of award.” 6. The Reference was thus answered by the learned Labour Court by directing the employer to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement in services as well as consequential service benefits. 7. In the course of adjudication of Reference Petition, learned Labour Court held that the termination of services of the workman in June, 2004 by the respondent was indeed in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, yet, learned Court below did not order reinstatement of the workman by holding that there was delay on the part of the workman in raising the Industrial Dispute. In lieu of reinstatement as well as other consequential service benefits, learned Labour Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. In lieu of reinstatement as well as other consequential service benefits, learned Labour Court awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the workman by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another vs. Geetam Singh, 2013 (136) FLR 893 (SC) by observing that in the said case, wherein the workman was found having worked more than 1000 days, compensation of rupees One lac was awarded, therefore, in the present case, as the workman had worked for 432 days, Rs. 50,000/- would be adequate compensation. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the workman has filed this writ petition. 9. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the findings returned by the learned Labour Court that the termination of services of the workman was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act have attained finality, as the same have not been challenged by the employer. 10. Mr. Sarthak Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the Award passed by the learned Labour Court needs to be modified to the extent that a direction needs to be issued to the employer to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. In the alternative, he argued that in case the Court does not agrees with his said submission, then the compensation amount which has been ordered by the learned Labour Court, has to be enhanced, as while arriving at the figure of Rs. 50,000/- learned Labour Court erred in not appreciating that as the workman was engaged in Killar area of District Chamba, which is a hard as also snow bound area, rigours of 240 days in preceding 12 months do not apply and the parameter is of 160 days in preceding 12 months for the application of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that there is no illegality with the Award which has been passed by the learned Labour Court. As the workman indeed had raised the industrial dispute after considerable delay, learned Labour Court rightly refused his reinstatement and compensation which was awarded, is also just and fair. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned Award as well as other documents appended with the petition. 13. As the workman indeed had raised the industrial dispute after considerable delay, learned Labour Court rightly refused his reinstatement and compensation which was awarded, is also just and fair. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned Award as well as other documents appended with the petition. 13. In my considered view, the findings which have been returned by the learned Labour Court as to why the petitioner/workman is not entitled for reinstatement are cogent and just findings. It is a matter of record that despite the services of the workman having been terminated in the year 2004, yet he raised the industrial dispute in the year 2012. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-workman that the workman being a rustic person and resident of a remote area, could not raise the industrial dispute within a reasonable time, is liable to be rejected, because eight years cannot be said to be a reasonable time. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that Killar is a snow bound and hard area in District Chamba in the State of Himachal Pradesh, yet it is not as if the said area remains snow bound throughout the year. Therefore, no cogent reasons have been assigned by the workman as to why the industrial dispute was raised after eight years. 14. Be that as it may, there is force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-workman that the compensation which has been awarded by the learned Labour Court in favour of the workman is on the lower side. A perusal of the Award passed by the learned Labour Court demonstrates that while awarding an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, it was influenced by the fact that the petitioner had worked for total 432 days as on the day when his services were terminated and as in a similar case wherein a workman had worked for more than 1000 days, Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted compensation of rupees one lac, therefore, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was adequate. 50,000/-, it was influenced by the fact that the petitioner had worked for total 432 days as on the day when his services were terminated and as in a similar case wherein a workman had worked for more than 1000 days, Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted compensation of rupees one lac, therefore, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was adequate. While arriving at the amount of compensation, learned Court below has, indeed, erred in not appreciating that the work place of the workman being Killar in District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, therein the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act which were attracted, envisaged that a person ought to have worked for 160 days in preceding 12 months for attracting various provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In fact, it appears that this very important aspect of the matter escaped the notice of the learned Labour Court, because there is no discussion on this issue in the impugned Award. Keeping in view the fact that the services of the petitioner were indeed terminated without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and that as on the date of illegal termination of his services, the workman had been working with the respondent-Department since the year 2001 and that too, in a hard and snow bound area of the State of Himachal Pradesh, an amount of rupees one lac would have had been adequate compensation. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed by modifying the Award dated 29.11.2016, passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Kangra at Dharamshala in Reference Petition No. 77/2015 to the extent that the amount of compensation which stands granted by the learned Labour Court in favour of the petitioner is increased from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only). In other words, the additional amount ordered by this Court now takes the lump sum amount paid to the petitioner to rupees one lac. Rest of the Award passed by the learned Labour Court is upheld as it is. If the Award amount has already been paid to the petitioner-workman by the State, then the balance amount, as ordered hereinabove, be paid to workman within a period of three months from today. 16. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.