(1.) This writ petition has been filed by two workmen who were working with the respondent college on ad-hoc basis intermittently during the period from 02.02.1994 to 31.07.1996. They aggrieved by non-extension of their ad-hoc appointment raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide impugned award dated 07.10.2005 has directed their reinstatement along with costs of Rs.10,000/- or in the alternative an award of compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in lieu of reinstatement along with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The respondent paid compensation of Rs.60,000/- along with costs of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the impugned award to both the workmen who are petitioners herein and this fact is admitted by Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
(2.) Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Labour Court to each of the workmen in lieu of their right of reinstatement is quite inadequate and he submits that the said compensation should be enhanced by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. I do not find any merit in this argument advanced by the petitioner's learned counsel.
(3.) The award which has been challenged in the present writ petition was passed by the Labour Court about four years back on 07.10.2005. There is no satisfactory explanation given for the delay of about four years in filing of the writ petition. Furthermore, since the petitioners had worked intermittently on ad-hoc basis for a period of about two years with the respondent, this does not confer any right on them for their reinstatement or for compensation. I am supported in my view from a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr Vs. Ravinder Singh, Civil Appeal No2224 of 2008 (arising out of SLP(C) No.3347/2006) decided on 28.03.2008, wherein it was held as under:-