A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Management') has preferred this petition challenging the award dated 24th October 1991 passed by Labour Court No. II, Delhi in. D. No. 415/81. By the impugned award the learned Labour Court has held that services of Sh. Surinder Kumar Goel (hereinafter referred to as 'the Workman') were terminated illegally and it is directed that it would be deemed to be in service of the management with continuity of service and full back wages. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the purported termination is held to be retrenchment as defined under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and as the management had not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 25f of the act by paying retrenchment compensation and notice pay, which are the prerequisites of the retrenchment, this retrenchment has been held to be void ab initio as minimum service of 240 days in a year is required to attract the provisions of Section 25f of the act. The Labour Court has held that the workman was appointed in May 1980 and his services were terminated on 17th May 1981 and, therefore, he was in continuous service of more than 240 days. ( 2 ) IN the present writ petition it is this finding of the Labour Court, which is challenged on the ground that it is not based on any evidence. As per the management, the workman joined the service with the management as Production Supervisor only on 14th April 1981 and stopped coming to work with effect from 17th May 1981. He failed to report for duty despite reminders dated 19th May 1981, 30th May 1981 and 30th June 1981. In any case he performed the duties barely for a period of one month and not for one year as alleged by the workman. ( 3 ) IT is the determination of this apsect on which fate of the case hinges. ( 4 ) WHILE issuing show cause notice in this petition, vide order dated 22nd January 1993 in the stay application moved by the management, operation of the impugned award was stayed subject to petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs. 1 lac with the Registrar of this Court. Thereafter vide order dated 5th September 1995 rule was issued and interim order was made absolute. 1 lac with the Registrar of this Court. Thereafter vide order dated 5th September 1995 rule was issued and interim order was made absolute. ( 5 ) IT may be noted that the Labour Court had framed as many as the following four issues:- "1. Whether Shri Surinder Kumar Goel is a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the. D. Act? 2. Whether the reference is not competent in view of preliminary objection No. 2 and 3? 3. Whether Shri Surinder Kumar Goel abandoned employment as stated in the W. S. ? 4. As in terms of reference. " ( 6 ) HOWEVER, as mentioned above, main challenge by the petitioner is to the finding of the Labour Court regarding the period of service, which according to the management, is only one month whereafter he absented and did not rejoin in spite of notices sent to him. The case appeared in the daily cause list and was called out on 27th July 2005 on its turn. Nobody appeared on behalf of the workman. However, in order to give an opportunity Mr. A. K. Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner, was requested to inform mr. M. P. Sinha, who had appeared for the workman on earlier occasion and the matter adjourned to 1st August 2005. On 1st August 2005 Mr. Singla pointed out that he had informed Mr. Sinha about the hearing fixed. When the matter came up for hearing on 2nd August 2005 Mr. Singla informed that he had informed Mr. Sinha. Still there was no appearance of the counsel for the workman and, therefore, he had no alternative but to hear the petitioner's counsel. Perusal of the impugned award would show that the workman had testified that he had joined the management in May 1980 as a Finishing In- charge and his services were terminated on 17th May 1981. Apart from this oral statement, no documentary evidence was produced by the workman. Believing this oral testimony the Labour Court held that the workman was working continuously for a period of more than one year and as management could not adduce any evidence to prove its contention that the workman had abandoned the job, the statement of the workman that his services were dispensed with on 17th May 1981 was believed. Believing this oral testimony the Labour Court held that the workman was working continuously for a period of more than one year and as management could not adduce any evidence to prove its contention that the workman had abandoned the job, the statement of the workman that his services were dispensed with on 17th May 1981 was believed. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the management contended that statement of the workman that he joined the services in May 1980 was palpably false inasmuch as the petitioner had availed the service of M/s. Management ervices and Security Consultants, a recruitment agency (who are arrayed as respondent No. 5) for the purpose of getting a suitable Production Supervisor. Advertisement for this purpose was issued by respondent No. 5, which appeared in the daily edition of The Hindustan Times' dated 11th march 1981. This advertisement is annexed as Annexure 'a'. The workman applied for this post pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement vide his application dated 15th march 1981. This application is produced as annexure-'a1'. After completing the recruitment process the appointment was offered to him by the recruiting agency on 10th April 1981. Pursuant thereto the workman joined the duty with the management. The aforesaid documentary evidence is a clinching proof of the fact that the workman joined as Production Supervisor only in April 1981 and not in May 1980 as claimed by him. As recruiting agency is impleaded as party in these proceedings, it has also filed affidavit confirming the aforesaid position. ( 8 ) THE aforesaid documents produced by the petitioner would give an indication that the workman was engaged only in April 1981 and, therefo're, worked only for one month. However, there is one hurdle in the way of the management, which it has not been able to cross. Significantly these documents were not produced before the Labour Court and, therefore, testifying about these documents and proving the same before the Labour court does not arise. The documents are produced for the first time in this writ petition. The workman in his affidavit has stated and rightly so, that the management cannot rely upon these documents which were not produced and exhibited before the Labour court. Therefore, the plea sought to be convassed now with support of these documents cannot be looked into. The documents are produced for the first time in this writ petition. The workman in his affidavit has stated and rightly so, that the management cannot rely upon these documents which were not produced and exhibited before the Labour court. Therefore, the plea sought to be convassed now with support of these documents cannot be looked into. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, at the same time there is one glaring aspect of the matter which shall have bearing on the grant of relief. Even if it is treated as termination of workman's service by the management, as per the workman's own case he had worked for merely one year. His services were terminated way back in May 1981. He is not in service for more than 24 years. Further it is only the oral testimony of the workman which was believed and he had also not produced any evidence to show that he was engaged by the management in May 1980. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts instead of granting reinstatement equities can be balanced by granting compensation. Compensation in lieu of reinstatement can be awarded in suitable cases [see Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs. Union of India and Others, 2000 IV AD (Delhi) 711]. The management has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lac with the Registrar of this court pursuant to the order dated January 22,1993 passed in this writ petition. Interest of justice would be subserved if the award is modified by ordering compensation of Rs. l lac and allowing the workman to withdraw the aforesaid amount of Rs. l lac deposited by the management along with interest which has accrued thereon, which would also be substantial having regard to the intervening period. ( 10 ) THIS writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The Registry is directed to release the amount of Rs. 1 lac in favour of the workman/respondent No. 4 along with interest which has accrued thereon. There shall be no orders as to costs.