JUDGMENT : MUKESH R. SHAH, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 1605/1996 by which the Labour Court has partly allowed the Reference directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent-workman with 40% back wages and continuity of service. 2. Shri Yogen Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Respondent-workman has failed to prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year and as such it appears that the Respondent had abandoned the work. It is submitted that the finding given by the Labour Court that the Respondent-workman has worked for more titan one year is based on no evidence. It is further submitted that assuming that the Respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year, however, considering the fact that the total tenure of the Respondent-workman was 9½ months, the Labour Court has materially erred in directing the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent with 40% back wages. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others, 2010 (125) FLR 736 it is requested to award lumpsum monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages considering the fact that the Respondent-workman had worked for 9½ months. 3. Shri Gadia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent has tried to oppose the present petition, however, he is not in a position to substantiate and/or justify the finding given by the Labour Court that the Respondent-workman had worked for more than one year. He is also not in a position to satisfy how the Respondent-workman worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year. However, it is submitted that when there is a finding given by the Labour Court, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. He is also not in a position to satisfy how the Respondent-workman worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year. However, it is submitted that when there is a finding given by the Labour Court, the same is not required to be interfered with by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is submitted that in case this Court inclines to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award, in that case, it is requested to award reasonable monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Considering the impugned judgment and award, it prima facie appears that the finding given by the Labour Court that the Respondent-workman had worked for one year is based on no evidence. It appears that as such the Respondent has failed to establish and prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year. However, assuming that the Respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year and that there was no breach of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, in that case, considering the total tenure of service of the Respondent-workman of 9½ months only and considering the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal (supra), the Respondent-workman can be compensated in terms of lump sum monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. It appears to the Court that considering the total service tenure of the Respondent of 9½ months if Rs. 25,000/- is awarded by way of lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages and continuity of service it would sub-serve the ends of justice. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition succeeds in part and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 31.5.2010 in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 1605/1996 is modified to the extent that instead of reinstatement with 40% back wages and continuity in service, the Petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the Respondent by way of lump-sum monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and continuity of service, which shall be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent by an account payee cheque within a period of six weeks from today, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9%. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.