B.S. Verma, J.— (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 24-10-1996 passed by the respondent no.1 (Annexure-1 to the petition) whereby the learned Labour Court finding that the respondent no.2-workman had worked 252 days in a calendar year, i.e. more than 240 days, has held that the respondent no.2 is entitled to the benefit of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.2 in service. By the impugned award, in lieu of back wages, a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of proceedings, Rs. 500/- were also awarded. 3. According to the workman-respondent no.2, his services were terminated without any notice on 4-6-1992. Then, the workman raised an industrial dispute and ultimately, a reference was made under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the following dispute by the Labour Court:- 4. Whether the termination of services of the workman Sri Ramesh son of Sri Shankar w.e.f. 4-6-92 is legal and proper? If not, what benefit/relief is the workman entitled to get? 5. The case was contested from the side of the employer as well as the workman. Both have filed their written statements. 6. Before the Labour Court, the employer along with its written statement also filed the statement of work and the days on which workman had worked. The Labour Court in the impugned award also observed that in compliance of the direction of the Labour Court the employer also filed muster rolls/vouchers duly signed by the competent Officer of the department. 7. On the basis of the documentary evidence filed before the Labour Court, the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in one calendar year and therefore, the benefit of Section 6-N has accrued to the workman. Consequently, the impugned award was passed, which gave rise to the present writ petition. 8. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned award is not tenable because in the written statement filed on behalf of the employer it has been denied that the workman had not worked for 240 days continuously. Consequently, the impugned award was passed, which gave rise to the present writ petition. 8. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned award is not tenable because in the written statement filed on behalf of the employer it has been denied that the workman had not worked for 240 days continuously. It was asserted that the workman was engaged on muster roll as per exigency of work, but it has not been specifically denied that he was not engaged in the year 1980 and that his services were terminated in the year 1992. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. I.P.Kohli, Standing Counsel, has further submitted that in any view of the matter, now it is well settled now that instead of passing order of reinstatement in service, the workman shall be awarded compensation, as has been held by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments. 10. I have perused the Apex Court judgment in the case of Incharge Officer and another Vs. Shankar Shetty [(2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases, 126]. In that case, the Apex Court while considering the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein it has been inter alia held in paragraph 9 that the respondent was engaged as a daily wager in 1978 and his engagement continued for about 7 years intermittently up to 6-9-1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present one, it appears to us that relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable. In the case at hand, since the workman-daily wager had been engaged since the year 1980 and he had worked intermittently up to 1992, i.e. about 20 years back, therefore, following the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Incharge Officer and another Vs. Shankar Shetty (supra), the reinstatement of the workman-respondent no.2 is not justified and in lieu of his reinstatement, an adequate and just compensation would meet the ends of justice. 11. In view of the above, it would be in the fitness of things that the workman-respondent no.2 is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) instead of his reinstatement in service. 11. In view of the above, it would be in the fitness of things that the workman-respondent no.2 is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) instead of his reinstatement in service. Accordingly, the impugned award deserves to be modified and the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. 12. The writ petition is partly allowed. The workman-respondent no.2 shall be entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of being reinstated in the service. The impugned award stands modified to that extent. If any amount was paid by the petitioner under the interim order of this Court, the same shall be deducted from the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. _____________