Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the respondent workman is entitled to reinstatement with arrears of back-wages as ordered by the learned Single Judge. The respondent workman was employee of the appellants for the period beween 01.03.1993 to 15.01.1994 as daily rated workman. The workman has raised an industrial dispute about his retrenchment on 15.01.1994. The Labour Court has found that the claimant was not falling within the definition of workman, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of Industrial Disputes Act and adjudication was made against the workman. 3. The award of the Labour Court dated 16.08.1997 was subject matter of challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 41/1990. The learned Single Judge reversed the finding about "the workman" and directed reinstatement with 25% back-wages. 4. The only contention raised before us is that in the facts and circumstance, when the respondent was employed only for a period of little more than ten months as daily rated casual workman, at best he should have been awarded compensation against the illegal retrenchment and not be reinstated with arrears of back-wages. During the course of arguments, it was brought to our notice that notwithstanding the award of reinstatement, the workman has not joined his duties and it appears that he is not interested in joining the services nor any attempt was made even in pursuance of interim order passed in this appeal to secure his reinstatement. By order dated 02.03.2005, it was directed by this Court to the learned Counsel for the appellant to furnish information about the status of respondent vis-a-vis his employment in the State. In pursuance of which an additional affidavit was filed in which it has been stated that the respondent has not so far joined and he is not in service. 5. The order of learned Single Judge is dated 012.2001. As late as in the month of March, 2005 the respondent was not in service nor made any effort to be reinstated for almost four years. 5. The order of learned Single Judge is dated 012.2001. As late as in the month of March, 2005 the respondent was not in service nor made any effort to be reinstated for almost four years. The appellant has moved a second stay petition and alongwith the same, has produced the order passed by the Labour Court on application under Section 33-C(2) computing the amount payable as arrears from the date of termination to the date of Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 012.2001 which has been computed at Rs.52,304/-and was ordered to be paid to the respondent subject to undertaking that it shall be returned if the High Court orders so in the pending appeal. Alongwith the affidavit, the copy of application moved by the respondent workman before the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has also been produced in which also he has not made any averment that he has been reinstated or working under the appellants. 6. In the totality of circumstances, we are of the opinion that it appears that the workman has no interest in reinstatement in service but has only interest to claim monetary benefits in the form of back-wages. 7. In the circumstances, while affirming the finding of the learned Single Judge that the retrenchment of the respondent-workman is invalid, we direct that instead of reinstatement, the respondent be paid lump sum amount by way of compensation as his services was only for a period of less than one year and he was employed on daily rate and considering that the 25% back-wages computed by the Labour Court upto the date of order of the Court, comes to Rs. 17,023/-, we direct that the respondent be paid Rs. 35,000/-by way of compensation including the amount determined by the Labour Court under Section 33-(C)(2 ). The said amount be paid to the respondent within a period of three months.