JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the Cantonment Board, Nasirabad against the award of the- Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer dated 26.3.2002 whereby the termination of the petitioner from their services has been held to be illegal and the respondent-workman has been held to be entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity. 3. Dr. PC. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent workman totally failed to prove before the Tribunal that he had in fact worked 240 days in the callender year. He contended that even from the documents produced by the respondent, it was evident that the respondent did not at all worked with the petitioner from 2.7.1987 to 18.3.1991 and thereafter also his period of working has been proved to be only 187 days. It was argued that the learned trial court could not, therefore, come to the finding that the respondent worked for 240 days and on that basis direct his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity. It was argued that the respondent workman in his statement especially in cross examination has admitted that he was never given any regular appointment and that he was appointed on daily wages and further that his appointment was not made under the relevant service rules. It was, therefore, submitted that there was no question for directing reinstatement of such an employee. Learned counsel submitted that the various orders which were produced by the workman merely indicated that he was engaged for few days in between and that too with breaks and not in continuity. Grant of relief in the nature of which the Tribunal has awarded to the workman was, therefore, not justified. 4. Shri Ajay Raj Tantia, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the work for which the respondent was engaged was regular in nature and that it was a case of sheer exploitation and unfair labour practice that the writ petitioners used to engage him and discontinue after regular intervals sometime for 10 days and sometimes for a fortnight. All the appointment letters which he had in his possession were produced. The learned Labour Court rightly held that the respondent workman was enraged on monthly basis because his salary was paid on monthly basis. All the appointment letters which he had in his possession were produced. The learned Labour Court rightly held that the respondent workman was enraged on monthly basis because his salary was paid on monthly basis. It was contended that when the petitioner management could not prove the payment of salary on daily wage basis, the labour court was justified in holding that the respondent was engaged on month to month basis and on that basis, it rightly held that he worked for more than 240 days in a callender year immediately preceding the date of his retrenchment on 1.12.1992. It was argued that even if the actual working days as per the proof furnished by the respondent were proved to be 187 and a half days, the period of saturdays and sundays and public holidays being added thereto it become 240 days in the meaning of Section 25B(2)(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. This writ petition seeks to challenge an award which was passed by the learned Labour Court on the basis of the application moved by the respondent workman pursuant to a judgment earlier passed by this Court in his writ petition on 28.2.1997. This Court in the said judgment granted opportunity to him to directly approach the Labour Court with a further direction to that Court to decide the matter within six months. The admission of the respondent workman in his cross examination clearly reveals that his appointment was not regular in nature and that he was never appointed under the relevant recruitment rules. He was in between engaged on certain days on the daily wages and accordingly paid. The very same appointment order which has been produced on record indicates that he worked initially in the year 1987 but thereafter he was given appointment fresh in 1991 on 18.3.1991. The alleged termination of the respondent workman was made on 1st December, 1992. Almost a period of 16 years has gone since then. Keeping in view the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was only on daily wage basis and that too it was made without any process known to law, even if the learned labour court came to hold that there was infringement of Section 25-F directing reinstatement of such an employed with full back wages with interest @ 4% and continuity in service could not be justified.. Now that this matter is being decided presently after 16 years of the alleged retrenchment, reinstatement of such an employee cannot in any case be justified. This Court in Vikas Adhikari & Anr. v. Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner & Anr., 2007 (1) WLC (Raj.) 474 on consideration of various Supreme Court judgments on the question held that the principles of law which can be culled out from such judgments are that relief of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement may be awarded (i) when the nature of appointment of the workman is only casual and temporary; (ii) such appointment was not made by following due process of law; (iii) when there had been delay in making of reference; (iv) when a long time has otherwise elapsed from the date of alleged retrenchment till passing of the award and subsequently till deciding the matter by the Court; (v) when length of service of the workman has not been much; (vi) when the workman was engaged in a temporary project or Scheme which has come to end;(vi) when the management does not have any post or means to accommodate and continue the workman in their services. 6. In my considered view and in view of the law aforesaid, ends of justice would have met if the labour court had awarded lump sum compensation instead of reinstatement with full back wages with continuity in service. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to modify the award of the labour court by directing that the petitioners should pay to the respondent a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part.Writ Petition Allowed In Part. *******