Judgment BALIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is barred by 57 days. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved. Heaving heard learned counsel for the applicant. We are of the opinion that no case is made out setting up a case for existence of sufficient cause that may have prevented appellant from filing appeal within limitation. Mover over, we find that there is no merit in this appeal. ( 2 ) THE respondent was retrenched from service after having served more than 9 years and 7 months. Learned Tribunal while finding on a reference made to it termination to be illegal being in violation of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 awarded Rs. 22,000/- compensation in lieu of reinstatement inter alia on the ground that such reinstatement is barred under the Rajasthan Regularisation of Appointment to Public Service and rationalisation of Staff Act,1999. ( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge referred to the Bench decision of this Court in Bhawani Singh vs State of Rajasthan and others 2002 (3) WLC728, by which the provisions of Sections 11, 18 and 19 of the Act of 1999 were held to be ultra vires repugnant to the law made by the parliament. Since, the rejection of the prayer of reinstatement was founded solely on the basis of said provision, learned Single Judge held the reason for denying reinstatement unsustainable. Considering the fact that the workman had worked more than 9 years and 7 months until his services were illegally retrenched and was already entitled to semi- permanent status, at the verge of getting the status of permanent, under the Work Charges Rules, held that in the circumstances the reinstatement was right relief and paltry sum of Rs. 22,000/- awarded in lieu of reinstatement of a workman who had served for over 9 years and 7 months is not just, reasonable and proper. ( 4 ) WE are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has right in holding that reason adopted by the Labour Court in denying reinstatement was not sustainable in law and on considering the fact of present case exercised his discretion in granting reinstatement. ( 4 ) WE are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has right in holding that reason adopted by the Labour Court in denying reinstatement was not sustainable in law and on considering the fact of present case exercised his discretion in granting reinstatement. Learned Labour Court has totally failed to consider that it was case of a workman who had the protection of Industrial Disputes Act ,and was a case in which respondent workman had continuously worked for more than 9 years and 7 months. Without considering this aspect of matter, denial of reinstatement was apparently unjust and arbitrary. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as appeal are hereby dismissed. No costs.