Bharati Sapru, J.— This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court dated 3-1-2008 by which the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the services of the respondent workman were terminated in violation of provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 2. The Labour Court has reinstated the workman alongwith 60% of his back wages. From the record, it is reflected that the workman was 53 years of age at the time when he raised an industrial dispute. Consequently he would have inevitably retired in the year 2002. However this aspect of the matter has not been taken into in the award of the Labour Court. 3. Learned counsel for both sides who are present in Court have informed the Court that the workman is no more. He passed away in the year 2009. 4. This petition was filed in the year 2008 and the Court has passed an interim order on 4-6-2008 by which the petitioner was asked to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Petitioner states that he had complied with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act and in pursuance thereof, Rs.16,000 have been deposited before the Labour Court. The workman however did not turn up. 6. In recent decision of the court in Madhya Pradesh Administration v. Tribhuban, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 748 and Sita Ram v. Motilal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 75 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that subject to the facts in each given case, a compensation in lieu of reinstatement could be given where there is violation of Section 6-N of U.R Industrial Disputes Act. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the workman is no more and finding of the Labour Court is that Section 6-N of the Act is violated, the Labour Court ought to have taken into account these facts and the legal heirs of the workman could have given compensation in lieu of reinstatement and that too for the period when he had not reached the age of superannuation and no relief could have been given beyond that. 8. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record and in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that it would be just and fair that since the workman is no more, a compensation of Rs.16,000 which has already been deposited before the Labour Court may be released to the heirs of respondent workman alongwith another sum of Rs.50,000 which have been agreed by both the parties before this court, may be paid to legal heirs and representative of the workman as full and final compensation for violation of provisions of section 6-N of the Act. It is directed that the amount as indicated above, shall be released to the legal heirs and representative of the respondent workman within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. 9. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Petition disposed of. _____________