ORDER : Brahma Singh Verma, J. Since the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided together by this common order. All these writ petitions have been filed by The State Industrial Development Corporation of Uttaranchal (SIDCUL), which has been appointed as a nodal agency by the Government of Uttarakhand u/s 48 of the U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 against the impugned awards dated 19-9-2003, 13-2-2004, 31-7-2003, 17-1-1998, 17-10-2003, 19-9-2003, 21-7-2003, 31-12-2003, 9-6-2003, 29-3-2003, 17-10-2003, 9-6-2003, 13-2-2004, 19-4-2003, 4-9-2003, 24-12-2003, 17-11-2003, 27-8-2003, 24-12-2003, 13-2-2004 and 29-6-1998 passed by the Labour Court and the orders by which the review/recall applications of the petitioner have been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, the Government of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) u/s 48 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, vide its office memorandum dated 23.11.2004, appointed SIDCUL as a nodal agency to rehabilitate the Kashipur and Jaspur units and to do all the needful as was required to be done by Government of Uttarakhand. 3. The spinning mills at Jaspur and Kashipur were erstwhile units of U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. and were engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn. The respondents/workmen were employed at Kashipur and Jaspur spinning mills and most of them were regular employees. Due to some undisciplined act and misbehavior against the management of the mills, charge-sheet was issued against the respondents/workmen and was also published in local newspapers under Standing Orders for gross misconduct requiring the respondents/workmen to appear before the Enquiry Officer on different dates, mentioned in the impugned orders. According to the petitioner, a proper and legal domestic enquiry was conducted and principles of natural justice and fair play were duly followed by the Enquiry Officer and all opportunity, as provided under the law, was also given to them. After enquiry, a detailed enquiry report was produced before the Punitive Officer in which the workmen/respondents were found guilty of the charges levelled against them and ultimately services of the respondents/workmen were terminated. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the respondents/workmen raised the industrial dispute, which was referred to Labour Court that "Whether the termination of the respondents/workmen is legal and proper? If not, to what relief is the respondents/workmen are entitled to get? The learned Tribunal issued notices to the parties concerned. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the respondents/workmen raised the industrial dispute, which was referred to Labour Court that "Whether the termination of the respondents/workmen is legal and proper? If not, to what relief is the respondents/workmen are entitled to get? The learned Tribunal issued notices to the parties concerned. Both the parties filed their written statements and replica. The learned Labour Court, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry has been conducted violating the principles of natural justice and no opportunity was given to the respondents/workmen. Ultimately, by the impugned awards, the learned Labour Court ordered reinstatement of the workman/respondents along with back-wages and expenses of litigation. Thereafter, when the recovery was issued against the petitioner, review application was filed by the petitioner, which was also dismissed. Hence, these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. was a sick company, declared sick by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on 2.2.1995 and demerger proceedings for demerging Jaspur and Kashpur units is pending and these two units have been given on lease to ALPS Industries Ltd., Gaziabad, which has also become a sick company and is before BIFR and both these units were deemed to have been closed on 31.1.2001. These facts have not been controverted in the counter-affidavit. 6. Insofar as the findings of the Labour Court is concerned, I do not find any error in the same, since on the basis of evidence, learned Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner and was conducted violating the principles of natural justice. 7. This fact is not disputed that the petitioner has been appointed as a nodal agency u/S. 48 of the U.P. Reorganization Act to manage these two units belonging to State of Uttarakhand, therefore, in my view, the proceedings were rightly initiated against the petitioner for execution of Award. 8. Now, the sole question remains is whether order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is sustainable, since the demerger proceedings for demerging Jaspur and Kashipur Units, belonging to erstwhile U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd., is pending, wherein the State of Uttarakhand is also a party. 8. Now, the sole question remains is whether order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is sustainable, since the demerger proceedings for demerging Jaspur and Kashipur Units, belonging to erstwhile U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd., is pending, wherein the State of Uttarakhand is also a party. 9. In Incharge Officer and Another Vs. Shankar Shetty, (2010) 9 JT 262 , the Apex Court has held that the reinstatement of the workman is not justified and in lieu of his reinstatement, an adequate and just compensation would meet the ends of justice. 10. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the ratio of Apex Court judgment (supra), although the said judgment (supra) has been rendered in case of daily wagers wherein the workman had worked for more than 240 days and provision of Section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act was not complied, however, in the case at hand the demerger proceedings of both the units is pending, therefore, the Court is of the opinion, instead of their reinstatement, the respondents/workmen are entitled to get compensation. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the respondents/workmen has worked for a considerable period of time with the U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd., the Court is of the view that compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty thousand) in lump sum to the workmen/respondents would meet the ends of justice instead of their reinstatement in service. The impugned awards deserve to be modified to that extent. Accordingly, the reinstatement part of the impugned awards is set aside. Instead of reinstatement, the workmen/respondents shall be paid compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty thousand) in lump sum by the petitioner within a period of four months. In case of default, the respondents/workmen would be entitled to get interest @ 8% till the payment is made. The said amount shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Deputy Labour Commissioner concerned. Impugned Awards stand modified. Writ petitions are partly allowed.