ORDER 1. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (in short the ‘Tribunal’) on 17.6.2014 (Annexure-P/1) in case No.CGIT/LC/R/171/00 whereby the Tribunal while deciding a reference made to it under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act, 1947’) though held the termination of the petitioner from service w.e.f. 11.11.1995 illegal and as such, awarded compensation in his favour to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, but not directed the respondents for the petitioner’s reinstatement in service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is assailing the impugned award solely on the ground that the Tribunal had committed illegality not directing the reinstatement of the petitioner in service and only awarded the compensation whereas it was obligatory for the Tribunal to direct the petitioner’s reinstatement with full back-wages especially when the Tribunal was of the opinion that termination of the petitioner was illegal as it was made in violation of provision of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947. 3. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that undisputably, the petitioner had rendered services with the respondents/department for almost eight years w.e.f. April 1987 till 10.11.1995. He submits that though the Tribunal had awarded only compensation that too a very meagre amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, but it should have directed for reinstating the services of the petitioner with full back-wages. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1467/2018 [Dy. Narcotic Commissioner (Admn.), Gwalior v. Sunil Kumar Kushwah] while dealing with similar situation had enhanced the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the employee from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, who rendered services with the respondent/department for a period of two years. He further submits that in the present case, since the petitioner has rendered services with the respondents/department for a period of eight years, therefore, in light of the judgment of Sunil Kumar Kushwah (supra), the amount of compensation awarded in his favour is also liable to be enhanced adequately. 4. On the other hand, Shri Usrethe, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the amount of compensation had rightly been awarded to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Shri Usrethe, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the amount of compensation had rightly been awarded to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the Supreme Court consistently has taken a view that instead of reinstatement, it would be proper to award compensation and as such, the Tribunal did nothing wrong in doing so. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of impugned award passed by the Tribunal and also taking into account the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Sunil Kumar Kushwah (supra) wherein the Division Bench after considering two years services rendered by the employee had enhanced the amount of compensation awarded in his favour to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, I am of the opinion that here in the present case, the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- despite rendering services of eight years does not appear to be proper. Though, the petitioner was a daily wager employee and there is nothing available on record to show as to whether he was unemployed or engaged somewhere, but, looking to the presence scenario, the amount of compensation awarded in his favour by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced and as such, instead of Rs.1,50,000/-, the amount of compensation is enhanced to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. Accordingly, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the above extent and as such, it is directed that the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @6% from the date of order till its actual payment is made, shall be paid to the petitioner within a further period of 30 days from the date of order. 6. With the aforesaid modification, the petition filed by the petitioner stands partly allowed.