JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Shri J.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajendra Yadav and Shri K. Sahi, learned counsel for respondent No. 3–Shri Mahendra Kumar- workman. This writ petition is directed against award dated 17.4.2009 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), U.P., Kanpur. The matter which was referred to the Labour Court was as to whether the action of petitioner-employer in terminating the services of its workman-respondent No. 3, who was chowkidar, w.e.f. 1.1.1992 was just and legal or not. Through the impugned award Labour Court held that the termination was bad as retrenchment compensation as required by Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (U.P.I.D.) Act had not been paid. Accordingly, reinstatement with Rs. 50,000/- as back wages was directed. According to the workman he had worked w.e.f. 31.3.1990 as seasonal waterman. 2. In the following authorities it has been held that even if the termination order is bad for non-payment of retrenchment compensation still instead of directing reinstatement, the proper relief to be awarded is that of payment of consolidated damages/compensation. 3. Nagarmaha Palika v. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 2006 SC 2113, Haryana State Electronics Development Corpn. v. Mamni, AIR 2006 SC 2427 and AIR 2008 SC 1955 , Sita Ram and others v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers’ Training Institute and Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, AIR 2009 SC 3004 . It is particularly so when the employer is government or governmental agency and appointment has not been made under any Rule. The workman in the instant case could not show that he was appointed by following any procedure. 4. Accordingly, the Court suggested that parties might try to settle the dispute amicably by payment and acceptance of reasonable amount as consolidated damages. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed to the suggestion of the Court and left the matter of determination of reasonable damages upon the Court. Under the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that Rs. 1 lac would be the reasonable amount. Accordingly, impugned award is set aside and is substituted by a direction of payment of Rs. 1 lac by petitioneremployer to respondent No. 3 the workman positively within two months failing which 2% per month interest shall be payable thereupon since after two months till actual payment. 1 lac would be the reasonable amount. Accordingly, impugned award is set aside and is substituted by a direction of payment of Rs. 1 lac by petitioneremployer to respondent No. 3 the workman positively within two months failing which 2% per month interest shall be payable thereupon since after two months till actual payment. The amount may either be paid to respondent No. 3 through draft or deposited before the Labour Court for immediate payment to respondent No. 3. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of as above. ————