IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16684 of 2024 Date of Decision: 07.09.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Naresh Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus The General Manager & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Chetna Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.1. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with award dated 21.11.2023 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, whereby direction came to be issued to respondents to pay full and final settlement amount to the tune Rs. 50,000/- as lump sum compensation to the petitioner within two months from the date of pronouncement of award, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying therein to modify the award, thereby enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 50,000/- to some reasonable amount. 2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that once Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, 2 Shimla, after having appreciated the pleadings as well as evidence, had arrived at a definite conclusion, that domestic inquiry conducted against the petitioner is proper and valid, but his dismissal from service was not fully justified, there was no justification to award a meagre compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. rather petitioner ought to have been awarded some reasonable compensation. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned award, this court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same. However, having taken note of the fact that prior to his removal from service, the petitioner had rendered more than eight years of service, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded to him cannot be said to be reasonable and as such, the same deserves to be enhanced. It is not in dispute that aforesaid award has not been laid challenge by the respondent-company, meaning thereby, it has attained finality qua respondent, and it is under obligation to implement the same. 4. Though having found order of termination of the petitioner to be illegal, tribunal below ought to have ordered reinstatement, but since factory of respondent No. 1 stands closed and all the workers, save and except petitioner and one more, had taken VRS, Labour Court though rightly not ordered for reinstatement, but has fallen in grave error while ordering meagre compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 50,000/-, which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be adequate. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned award dated 21.11.2023 is modified. Respondent-company is directed to pay full and final settlement amount to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of two months, failing which petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date such amount became payable to him. Application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma ) Judge September 07, 2026 (sunil)