JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - As per the writ petition, the Petitioner joined in Bargarh Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. at Tora (hereinafter referred to as 'Sugar Mills') on 03.01.1974 as Field Demonstrator. Due to his good performance, in the year 1978, he got double promotions and was posted as Sugar Cane Inspector by the then authorities. But in the year, 1986 as the Petitioner, wrote to higher authorities against the illegalities committed by some of his superior officers causing loss to the poor farmers, his service was illegally terminated on 31.10.1997. Challenging the illegal termination order, he filed O.J.C. No. 3301 of 1987 before this Court, which was allowed on 23.08.1991 and he was directed to be reinstated in service. Challenging the said order of this Court, opposite party No. 1 preferred SLP bearing No. 17210 of 1992 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 30.11.1993. Since the order of this Court passed in O.J.C. No. 3301 of 1987 was not implemented, the Petitioner preferred another writ petition in O.J.C. No. 6243 of 1991 with prayer to direct opposite party No. 1 to implement the order, which was disposed of on 23.12.1993 directing opposite party No. 1 to comply the aforesaid order within one month from the date of order. In the meantime, the Management of the Sugar Mills was handed over to M/s. Ponny Sugar and Chemicals (P) Ltd. on 30.08.1991, i.e., six days after the order passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 3301 of 1987, with condition that all the employees of the Sugar Mills would work under M/s. Ponny Sugar and Chemical (P) Ltd. (O.P. No. 2) with the same service conditions. After the order dated 23.12.1993 passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 6243 of 1991, the Petitioner submitted his joining report before opp. party No. 1 on 13.01.1994 vide Annexure 1, but, he was not allowed to join. So, he preferred a contempt petition before this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 24 of 1994 and on receipt of notice therein, opposite party No. 1 reinstated him in service, paid the back wages, but did not allot any work. party No. 1 on 13.01.1994 vide Annexure 1, but, he was not allowed to join. So, he preferred a contempt petition before this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 24 of 1994 and on receipt of notice therein, opposite party No. 1 reinstated him in service, paid the back wages, but did not allot any work. The contempt petition was taken up for hearing on 19.02.1996 and was disposed of with finding that as the Petitioner was reinstated in service, the order of this Court was complied with and a new cause of action arose with regard to non-allotment of any work to him, for which he can file a fresh writ petition. Opp. party No. 1 advised the Petitioner not to file any further application before this Court, as in due course he would be provided with work. But on 18.3.1998, the Petitioner was served with a notice of his proposed retrenchment vide Officer Letter No. 112 and vide Office Letter No. 114 dated 18.03.1998, the said proposal was intimated to the Government in Labour and Employment Department (Annexure-4 and 5 respectively). On 18.3.1998 vide Office Letter No. 116, the Petitioner was intimated about his retrenchment with effect from 18.3.1998 and was asked to collect his final dues from the office of opp. party No. 1 (Annexure-5). The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash Annexure-3, 4 and 5. 2. Opp. party No. 1 in its counter affidavit stated that the Petitioner is a workman as defined u/s 25(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short I.D. Act). Only because the was getting salary more than Rs. 1600/- per month, it cannot be said that he is not a workman. Moreover, as a workman the Petitioner approached the Labour Court, Sambalpur in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2005 claiming some arrear dues from the establishment of opp. party No. 1 and vide order dated 24.8.2006, the dispute was set at rest on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties vide Annexure-A/1. So, now he cannot say that he is not a workman. He cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. 3. In compliance to the order of this Court, the Petitioner was reinstated by the then Secretary, ARCS, Bargarh Circle, when the Sugar Mills was running by opp. party No. 2 on lease basis. So, now he cannot say that he is not a workman. He cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. 3. In compliance to the order of this Court, the Petitioner was reinstated by the then Secretary, ARCS, Bargarh Circle, when the Sugar Mills was running by opp. party No. 2 on lease basis. The Petitioner received salary month to month without rendering any service. When it could not be feasible to pay salary to the Petitioner, there was no other alternative than to retrench him from service in accordance with law. It is the specific case of opp. party No. 1 that except S.K. Mohanty, the other employees named in Paragraph-18 of the writ petition, are senior to the Petitioner. Moreover, the principle of "Last come first go" will not be applicable to the present case as the Petitioner was retrenched on different reason. 4. The agreement arrived at between the opp. party No. 1 and opp. party No. 2 was executed on 30.8.1991 and by that time opp. Party No. 1 had no knowledge about the order dated 23.8.1991 passed by this Court reinstating the Petitioner in service. Since the Petitioner was not in the pay roll of the opp. party No. 1, as per the agreement between opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 his name was not included in the list of employees under Annexure-V to Annexure-2. Therefore, opp. party No. 1 pressed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Opp. party No. 2 in its counter affidavit stated that the Petitioner being a workman, as defined under the I.D. Act and the special forum provided under the said Act being available to him, the writ petition filed before this Court is not tenable. On 30.8.1991 by virtue of an agreement between opp. party Nos. 1 and 2, the Management of the Sugar Mills was taken over by the latter. Regarding absorption of the work force, it was agreed upon by the parties that opp. party No. 2 shall take certain employees of the Sugar Mills, whose names were mentioned in the list vide Annexure-V to Annexure-2. The Petitioner's name having not been found place in the said list, there was no question of reinstating him by opp. party No. 2. So, opp. party No. 2 prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Opp. party No. 3 did not prefer to file a separate counter affidavit. 6. The Petitioner's name having not been found place in the said list, there was no question of reinstating him by opp. party No. 2. So, opp. party No. 2 prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Opp. party No. 3 did not prefer to file a separate counter affidavit. 6. Learned Counsel for the opp. party No. 1, at the out set, submitted that the Petitioner being a workman as defined u/s 25(s) of the I.D. Act, he should have ventilated his grievance by approaching the appropriate Industrial Dispute Forum, instead of this Court. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is not a workman, since his monthly salary was more than Rs. 1600/ - per month and his work was supervisory in nature. He further submitted that claiming himself as a workman Petitioner approached the Labour Court. Sambalpur, for some arrears from the establishment of opp. party No. 1 in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2005 and vide order dated 24.8.2006 the dispute was set at rest on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties under Annexure-A/1. So, now he cannot say that he is not a workman. The present writ petition was filed in the year, 1998. In the meantime, 10 years have already elapsed. So, at this stage we do not think it proper not to deal with the case on the ground of availability of alternative forum. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it was admitted by opp. party No. 1 that except one S.K. Mohanty, Sugar Cane Inspector, none of the three employees mentioned in Paragraph-18 of the writ application was junior to the Petitioner. The established principle "Last come first go" having not been adhered to by opp. parties, the order of retrenchment passed against the Petitioner could not stand. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the opp. party No. 2 submitted that as per the agreement entered into between the opp. party Nos. 1 and 2, the employees, who were in the pay roll of opp. party No. 1 and whose names found place in the list Annexure-V to Annexure-2 were employed by opp. party No. 2. Since name of Petitioner was not there in the pay roll nor in the list, there was no scope for opp. party No. 2 to consider his case for employment. Moreover, the Petitioner never approached opp. party No. 1 and whose names found place in the list Annexure-V to Annexure-2 were employed by opp. party No. 2. Since name of Petitioner was not there in the pay roll nor in the list, there was no scope for opp. party No. 2 to consider his case for employment. Moreover, the Petitioner never approached opp. party No. 2 for employment. Learned Counsel for opp. party No. 1 supported the argument advanced by opp. party No. 2 and further submitted that opp. party No. 1 was not aware of the order of this Court with regard to reinstatement of the Petitioner and as such, his name could not be entered in Annexure-V to Annexure 2. Subsequently, when the order of reinstatement passed by this Court was brought to the notice of opp. party No. 1, the Petitioner was reinstated in service, even though the Management of the Sugar Mills had already been transferred to opp. party No. 2 by then and he was paid his salary month to month. As opp. party No. 1 sustained loss, its management was transferred to opp. party No. 2 and as such, it was not possible for opp. party No. 1 to pay the salary of the Petitioner, that too without doing any work, for which he was retrenched from service in accordance with law. He further submitted that even though S.K. Mohanty, the Sugar Cane Inspector was junior to the Petitioner since his name was there in the list under Annexure-V to Annexure-2, he was not retrenched. So, the principle 'Last come first go" would not be applicable to this case. 8. Admittedly, by the time the reinstatement order was passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 3301 of 1987, the agreement between opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 had not been arrived at. So, opp. party No. 1 could have empanelled the Petitioner in Annexure-V to Annexure-2. Even if it is held to be true that opp. party No. 1 was not aware of the order of reinstatement of the Petitioner passed by this Court till the agreement was executed, it could have approached opp. party No. 2 engage him after coming to know that order. But there is nothing to show that it had done so. So, we are of the opinion that Annexure-3, 4 and 5 deserve to be quashed. 9. party No. 2 engage him after coming to know that order. But there is nothing to show that it had done so. So, we are of the opinion that Annexure-3, 4 and 5 deserve to be quashed. 9. As found from the writ petition, the age of the Petitioner was 45 years in the year, 1998 as such his present age is about 56 years. It can very well be held that as opp. party No. 1 sustained loss, it transferred the management of the Sugar Mills to opp. party No. 2. Opp. party No. 2 also sustained loss and could not pay the installment dues of opp. party No. 1 as per the agreement and left the management. So, verily now the financial condition of opp. party No. 1 is in a very bad shape. Instead of reinstating the Petitioner in service, in our considered opinion, it would be just and proper to pay him a lump sum amount as compensation. 10. Petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 31.10.1997. He would have been superannuated in or about the year 2010. The monthly emoluments of the Petitioner, as found from Annexure-3 was Rs. 3529/ - or 42348/ - per annum. So, had he continued in service for 12 years more he would have received a sum of Rs. 5,08, 176/ - as remuneration. He has also received retrenchment compensation of Rs. 42,348/ -. So, in our view, if a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,000007/ - (Rupees three lakhs) is paid to him as compensation, it would meet the ends of justice. 11. Therefore, Annexures-3, 4 and 5 are quashed and it is directed that opp. party No. 1 would pay a sum of Rs. 3,00000/- (Rupees three lakhs) to the Petitioner as a compensation within a period of two months hence. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. P.K. Tripathy, J. 12. I agree.