JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent No. 3 is a workman and was employed in the petitioner’s corporation on 15th May, 1982. The workman worked continuously for more than 5 years and his services was terminated by an order dated 20th September, 1987 on the charge of stealing a watch of his colleague. The workman, being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the matter to the Labour Court with regard to the validity and legality of the order of termination. 3. The workman contended that no inquiry nor any charge-sheet was given to him before passing the order of termination. On the other hand, the Corporation took a stand that the Manager had conducted a preliminary inquiry and found that the charge stood proved. It was further contended that the workman also misbehaved with the Manager and, consequently, on this short ground also the workman’s services was terminated. It was also contended that the workman was a daily wager and that no disciplinary inquiry was required for a daily wager. 4. The Labour Court, after considering the material evidence on record, gave an award dated 27th November, 1993, which was published on 22nd July, 2004 directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and will full back wages. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said award, has filed the writ petition in the year 2004, which was entertained and a complete stay of the award was granted. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the Court finds that the contention of the petitioner that the workman was employed as a daily wager and was not employed in a permanent capacity is patently misconceived. The appointment letter has been filed as annexure 1 to the writ petition, which indicates that the workman was appointed as a skilled workman on a salary including dearness allowance etc. The appointment letter does not indicate that the workman was appointed on a temporary basis or as a daily wager. This Court further finds that the workman had worked from 1982 to 1987 continuously without any break in service and, therefore, having worked for five years was entitled to be heard and disciplinary proceedings was required to be taken against the workman. This Court further finds that the workman had worked from 1982 to 1987 continuously without any break in service and, therefore, having worked for five years was entitled to be heard and disciplinary proceedings was required to be taken against the workman. The employers were required to adhere to the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the company and take disciplinary action in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 6. In the instant case, the Court finds that the services of the workman was terminated on account of a charge of theft. This charge has not been proved. No disciplinary inquiry was initiated nor any charge-sheet was served and, consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the order of termination was wholly violative of the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court was accordingly, justified in reinstating the workman. 7. Since the order is violative of the principles of natural justice, the workman has to be reinstated and it would be open to the employer to hold an inquiry in accordance with law. The Court, however, finds that it would not be worthwhile or feasible for the employer to hold a fresh inquiry on account of lapse of time. The incident is of the year 1987 and more than 26 years have elapsed. It has been stated that the factory has also closed down. Consequently, holding a fresh inquiry is not a feasible option. 8. With regard to reinstatement, the Court is also of the opinion that for such stale matters, reinstatement is also not a feasible option, especially when it has come to the knowledge of the Court that the factory has closed down. 9. The Court further finds that even though, the award was sent to the Government on 27th November, 1993, the State Government sat over the matter for 10 years and only published it on 22nd July, 2004. For these 11 years the employer should not be saddled with paying back wages to the workman since the employer was not at fault. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the only feasible option at this stage is to grant lump sum compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 11. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the only feasible option at this stage is to grant lump sum compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 11. As stated aforesaid, for calculating back wages and compensation, the period from 1993 i.e. from the date of the award till the award is published in 2004 should not be taken into consideration. 12. The workman has come forward and has stated on an affidavit that he is unemployed. The record also suggests that he is a farmer and, consequently, must be tilling his land, but no proof has been filed by the petitioner on an affidavit that the workman is gainfully employed in an industry. 13. Considering the aforesaid fact that the petitioner may have remained unemployed from 1987 onwards i.e. from the date of the award and that pursuant to the publication of the award, no amount from 2004 till date has been paid to him and considering the inflation and rise in the price index of the essential commodities, the Court is of the opinion that a lump sum payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs.5 lacs) would be substantial to meet the ends of justice. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with back wages is modified to the extent that the petitioner would pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs.5 lacs) to the workman within six weeks from today in lieu of reinstatement with back wages.