Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 29.03.1996 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Jaipur. 2. The facts which require adjudication for the dispute are that respondent workman joined service as accounts clerk in the establishment by the petitioner on 28.01.1985 on a salary of Rs. 800/-per month and was confirmed in the cadre with effect from 011.1985. His services were dispensed with w.e.f. 28.05.1986 which was challenged by him by raising a reference adjudicated by the learned Labour Court, Jaipur. 3. The workman alleged in his claim petition that his services were dispensed with without complying the provisions of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. Neither one months salary nor compensation as provided under Section 25-F was offered nor paid to him before the decision for termination was taken under Clause-13 of the appointment letter as there were 100 workmen working in his establishment. Section 25-N was also violated. 4. The learned Labour Court, after adjudicating the dispute held that the termination was violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but since, the establishment has been closed in the month of November 1995, therefore, no reinstatement is possible. Consequently, the Labour Court awarded salary and all other benefits up to the date of award and Rs. 10,000/-towards compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 5. Shri Abhay Bhandari Counsel for the petitioner contends that the establishment itself was closed w.e.f. from November 1995 and the service being governed by Special Act namely Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1955 as such the reference made for adjudication of the dispute under the provisions of the Act 1947 was without jurisdiction. He further contends that the learned Labour Court has awarded Rs. 10,000/-as a compensation in lieu of reinstatement and the finding recorded with regard to violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not supported by material available on record and which required interference by this Court and once this fact remains undisputed that the establishment has been closed w.e.f. November 1995, he was not entitled for compensation as well the salary and other benefits even up to the date of award and looking to the service which he rendered the overall payment which the learned Labour Court, has ordered to pay requires interference. He further contends that the workman was gainfully employed and sufficient evidence was led for consideration before the Labour Court, which has not been considered while awarding the back-wages and compensation. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no sufficient material has been placed on record in support of the contention that he was gainfully employed and that there was no condition in his appointment letter that he was restrained from doing any other work than for which he was employed with the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondent further urged that a finding of fact has been recorded that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and un-disputedly compliance of the provisions has not been made. As such no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court in awarding full back-wages and other consequential benefits upto the date of award and since he could not be reinstated since the establishment itself was closed from November 1995, the compensation has rightly been awarded. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The question which was raised by the Counsel for the petitioner that the service being governed by the Act of 1955 the learned Labour Court was not competent to entertain the reference, in my opinion, is without any substance for the reasons that no objection was raised by the petitioner before the learned Court below and the issue which was framed for consideration was as to whether the provisions rendered under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, were violated or not and the same was sufficiently examined, after evidence being led by the either parties, by the Labour Court and the objection raised by the petitioner at this stage deserves rejection. 8. 8. So far as next submission made with regard to provisions of Section 25-F is concerned, the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact which is duly supported by the material on record holding that provisions of Section 25-F was violated and as a consequence thereof the workman was entitled for reinstatement with back-wages but this could not be ruled out that the back-wages is not to be considered as a Rule for all times to come when this fact remained undisputed that establishment, was closed down from November 1995, reinstatement, in the facts and circumstances, was not possible and sufficient material came on record to show that he was gainfully employed elsewhere even while he was serving with the petitioners establishment. It goes without saying that the workman still has to be sufficiently compensated in lieu of reinstatement thereof . 9. As I have been informed that the total amount as computed by the petitioner in terms of the award comes to Rs. 1,21,563/-out of which Rs. 1,00,000/-has already been paid to the workman in terms of the order dated 12.01.1998, I consider it proper to order that the balance amount of Rs. 21,563/-shall be paid to the respondent-workman with interest 6% from the dated of award w.e.f. 11.03.1996 and that will be a sufficient compensation in lieu of reinstatement and with these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.