Order : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the impugned award dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Bharatpur has been assailed by the petitioners. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a common consolidated statement of claim was submitted by all the three petitioners namely Rajveer, Banay Singh and Rameshwar against their impugned termination order dated 01.01.1989 before the Labour Court with the averments that they were engaged as Beildar on 01.01.1983 and they continued on the said post till 31.12.1988 and their services were terminated on 01.01.1989 without issuing any notice and without making any payment of compensation by the respondent- Department in violation of the provisions contained under Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’). Counsel submits that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely Rajveer and Banya Singh have produced their evidence but the petitioner No. 3- Rameshwar could not produce his evidence, hence his evidence was closed. Counsel submits that all the petitioners have made a specific averments in the statement of claim petition that without following the due process of law as contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, their services were terminated. Counsel submits that looking to the length of service of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, a petty amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each was awarded to them while not even a single penny has been awarded to the petitioner No. 3. Counsel submits that once this fact was established on record that all three petitioners have worked with the respondent for more than 240 days and there was violation of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, then adequate amount of compensation could have been granted to the petitioners looking to their length of service, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioners have failed to establish this fact on record that they worked continuously for more than 240 days. Counsel submits that the petitioner Nos. 3 has failed to produce his evidence, hence the Labour Court has not committed any error in closing his evidence and passing the impugned award against him. Counsel submits that the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is just and proper to the extent of petitioner Nos. Counsel submits that the petitioner Nos. 3 has failed to produce his evidence, hence the Labour Court has not committed any error in closing his evidence and passing the impugned award against him. Counsel submits that the award of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is just and proper to the extent of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the same does not require any interference of this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court is deciding the petition in two parts, one for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and second part for the petitioner No. 3. So far the case of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, they produced the evidence on record before the Labour Court that they were engaged on the post of Beildar on 01.01.1983 and they worked till 31.12.1988 and their services were terminated vide order dated 01.01.1989. Both petitioners have produced their evidence with regard to the working in the intervening period and they have established this fact on record that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and this fact has been appreciated by the Tribunal by recording a finding of fact but a petty amount of Rs. 50,000/- each has been paid to them, which is quite inadequate and improper, looking to the total length of service of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. Sharfuddin passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held para Nos.3 and 4 as under: “3.We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be Rs. 1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been Rs. 2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to beRs.3,00,000/-. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be Rs. 1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been Rs. 2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to beRs.3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair. 4. Having considered the overall circumstances and the given facts of this case which clearly shows that the workman was in service for one year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum compensation to the tune of`2,50,000/- (approximately equivalent to two years back wages)based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests & Anr. (supra) , this Court is of the view that the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal do not require any interference by this Court. However, looking to the total length of service of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. more than five years, the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-each, is inadequate and the same is liable to be enhanced to Rs. 3,00,000/-each. 8. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pay enhanced amount to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 within a period of three month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 9. It is made clear that if the respondent fails to comply with the order passed by this Court and fails to pay the enhanced compensation amount to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 within the above stipulated time, then they would be entitled to get interest @ 6% w.e.f. the date of passing of the award till its actual payment. 10. Now the Court proceeds to decide the matter of petitioner No. 3 -Rameshwar. This fact is not in dispute that a common claim petition was submitted by him along with petitioner Nos. 10. Now the Court proceeds to decide the matter of petitioner No. 3 -Rameshwar. This fact is not in dispute that a common claim petition was submitted by him along with petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and a specific averments was made therein that he was engaged on the same post i.e Beildar on 01.01.1983 till 31.12.1988 and his services were also terminated vide order dated 01.01.1989. The only difference between the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and petitioner No. 3 is that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 produced the evidence on record and the petitioner No. 3 failed to produce the evidence inspite of sufficient opportunity. 11. Considering all the material aspect of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to remand the matter of the petitioner No. 3 to the Labour Court, granting one more opportunity to produce his evidence. 12. The petitioner No. 3 as well as the State-respondent are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 19.03.2025 and in case, the petitioner No. 3 produces his evidence, the same opportunity be granted to the other side to produce the counter affidavit. The Labour Court is directed to decide his claim expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. 14. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.