JUDGMENT N.L. Ganguly, J. - This petition is directed against an award of the Labour Court dated 15-5-1986. The petitioner was given employment by the U. P. State Transport Corporation w.e.f. 1-12-1982. She was continuously working and her services were terminated by order dated 1-3-1983. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of termination, passed by the respondent/Corporation made application to the State Government and a reference was made under the provisions of Section 4-kk of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court for adjudication that whether the employers legally and correctly terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 1-3-1983. It is admitted fact that alongwith the petitioner, three other employees of the Corporation were also terminated Various pleas were raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Labour Court challenging the order of termination namely the order of termination was bad in law, she became regular on account of the working of more than 240 days, she was illegally terminated whereas juniors to her were retained. During the course of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the other three employees, who were also terminated alongwith the petitioner by the Corporation, entered into compromise and the respondent/Corporation re-employed the said three other Workmen. The Labour Court while deciding the reference before it, specifically observed in its award that there was no just and cogent reason for terminating the services of the petitioner. There was no complaint against the petitioner that she was not serving the Department properly. The Labour Court observed that U. P. State Transport Corporation which is a Government owned Corporation, should have behaved like an ideal employer. It was not proper on their part to have terminated the services of the petitioner. Since there was some technical error in the petitioner's case, as such the Labour Court refused to pass an award in favour of the petitioner reinducting her in service. The Labour Court in view of the fact that Corporation had already re-employed other three workmen, who were terminated alongwith that petitioner, were re-employed by the Corporation, the Labour Court observed that the Corporation shall consider the case of the petitioner in the same manner sympathetically and as far as possible, she may be reinstated on her post. 2. The Labour Court in view of the fact that Corporation had already re-employed other three workmen, who were terminated alongwith that petitioner, were re-employed by the Corporation, the Labour Court observed that the Corporation shall consider the case of the petitioner in the same manner sympathetically and as far as possible, she may be reinstated on her post. 2. After making the aforementioned observations, in the award, the Labour Court directed that a copy of the Award be sent to the U. P. State Transport Corporation for necessary action. 3. This petition was presented before the Court on 2nd December, 1986. The Court was pleased the direct to learned Counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The matter is for final disposal at the admission stage. There was a clear direction by the Labour Court to the Corporation for sympathetic consideration of the case of the petitioner for inducting her in the service. This order was passed on 15th May, 1986. Thereafter, six months of the said date, the writ petition was filed before this Court and the Corporation had knowledge and information that a writ petition has already been filed before the High Court. On the earlier occasion, on 25-1-1991, this court was pleased to ask the learned counsel for the respondents for obtaining instructions whether, the observations in the Award at paragraph 12, was complied with by the respondent/Corporation. Today when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the Corporation informed that he could not receive any such instructions from the respondent/Corporation. The request on behalf of the petitioner is that to decide the case on merits which I consider is proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was in Service of the Corporation, there was no complaint against her and her Services were terminated alongwith other three workmen. Since the other three workmen entered into compromise with the Corporation, they were taken in service. The only difference in the case of the petitioner and the case of other three workmen is that the petitioner has failed to enter into compromise with the Corporation. On this account the Labour Court was pleased to observe in the Award that the respondent/Corporation may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. It was expected that they shall behave like ideal employer. On this account the Labour Court was pleased to observe in the Award that the respondent/Corporation may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. It was expected that they shall behave like ideal employer. It is unfortunate that after more than 4 years, the Corporation Authorities failed to consider the directions of the Labour Court. It is not their case that they have no notice or knowledge about the Award and the directions of the Labour Court. The petitioner had filed the writ petition in December, 1985. This fact was known to the Corporation. The matter is being kept pending here for such a long period and the petitioner suffered on account of the delay and indifferent attitude of the respondent/Corporation. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I consider that this petition be disposed of finally without any formal order of admission. Since the case of the petitioner is similar to the other three workmen, who were rescored in the service, the petitioner is also entitled to be reinducted in service on the post, she was working. The petitioner shall be permitted to join her duties within two weeks from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 2 and she be paid her regular salary every month from the date of her joining. 6. Since this is one of those cases, which reflects indifferent attitude of the Public Corporation to their employees and disrespects of the order of the Courts and Tribunal, I consider that some observations, may be made, so that in future such Legal Authorities Corporations may respect and comply with the orders of the Courts, Tribunal and similar Authorities. It was the duty of the Corporation to have complied with the order of the Labour Court within a reasonable time. The Award of the Labour Court was passed on 15-5-1986. They should have considered the directions in the award in a reasonable time which may latest be about six months. It is a sorry state of affairs that a workman without any means had to suffer for more than 4 years in these hard days. I consider that she may be compensated and I consider that a direction be issued to the respondent/Corporation to pay 50% of the salary from the 1st of January 1987 till she is permitted to join. I consider that she may be compensated and I consider that a direction be issued to the respondent/Corporation to pay 50% of the salary from the 1st of January 1987 till she is permitted to join. This amount shall be paid to her within a period of three months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order. 7. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. A certified copy of this order may be given in a week to the counsel for parties on payment of usual charges.