Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—As both the petitions are directed against the common judgment and the award passed by the Labour Court, they are being considered simultaneously. 2. It may be mentioned that for the sake of convenience Surat Dudh Utpadak Co-operative Mandli Ltd. shall be referred to as the employer and Shri Bhikhabhai Maganbhai Patel shall be referred to as the workman. 3. The short facts of the case are that the workman joined the service with the employer in the year 1965 and he was also promoted from time to time and lastly he was working as Godown Keeper with the employer. In the year 1992, a show cause notice – cum – suspension order was issued against the workman by the employer on the alleged misconduct of (i) for non-implementation of the direction of the superior, (ii) for abusing and insulting the superior, (iii) for not remaining present and to get the work done through others, and (iv) remaining absent without sanctioned leave, and there were also charges of ‘no improvement’ in the behaviour inspite of earlier instructions given and the another ground that the activity of the workman was contrary to the interest of the employer. Thereafter, inquiry was held and in the inquiry the charges were found to be proved. The employer had served 2nd show cause notice before imposition of the punishment of discharge from service dated 16.10.1993. However, as per the employer no explanations were submitted. Whereas, as per the workman, he had forwarded the explanation. Be as it may, thereafter, on 20.10.1993 the decision was taken by the employer and all amount lying in the credit account of the workman viz. Provident Fund and other dues of gratuity, bonus, etc. as if the discharged were forwarded to the workman. The workman had accepted the amount under protest. Thereafter, the dispute was raised under the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred to as “the Act”) by the workman which came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication, being Reference (LCS) No. 348 of 1993. The Labour Court, at the conclusion of the Reference, partly allowed the dispute and directed for reinstatement. However, the back-wages were not awarded. The aforesaid Award came to be passed on 22.12.2004. The Labour Court, at the conclusion of the Reference, partly allowed the dispute and directed for reinstatement. However, the back-wages were not awarded. The aforesaid Award came to be passed on 22.12.2004. It is under these circumstances, the employer has preferred Special Civil Application No. 12068 of 2005, whereas the workman has preferred Special Civil Application No. 10597 of 2005 before this Court. It may be recorded that as per the workman, the Labour Court ought to have awarded back-wages, whereas, as per the employer, the Labour Court ought not to have passed the order of reinstatement. 4. I have heard Mr. Deepak Patel for the employer and Mr. A.K. Clerk for the work in both the petitioners for their respective client. 5. I would have examined the matter on merits further, however, learned Counsel appearing for the workman as well as for the employer declared before the Court that pending the Special Civil Application No. 12068 of 2005, as the interim stay was granted against execution and implementation of the Award on compliance of condition under Section 17(B) of the Act, the Award has not been implemented. In the mean time the workman has reached to the age of super-annuation. Hence, their respective clients are agreeable if this Court is inclined to award lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement of the workman. Learned Counsel for both the side also quantified the amount for lump sum compensation at Rs. 40,000/-, and it was declared that the amount already paid under Section 17(B) of the Act, pending the petition, would not be recovered by the employer from the workman. 6. In my view, as such the reinstatement was ordered, but for the fact that interim stay came to be granted by this court and the workman has already reached to the age of super-annuation, even otherwise also actual physical reinstatement would not be possible on the date when the matter is being considered for final disposal. It is true that if the Award is maintained, the workman may be entitled for the difference of regular salary, minus the amount paid under Section 17(B) of the Act. It is true that if the Award is maintained, the workman may be entitled for the difference of regular salary, minus the amount paid under Section 17(B) of the Act. However, it appears that the dispute if to be settled by the consensus of both the side, the same would meet with the ends of justice inasmuch as the Award of reinstatement can be substituted by the lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, but with the observation that the amount already paid under Section 17(B) of the Act shall not be recovered. No further discussion would be required on the said aspect, more particularly, when the learned Counsel appearing for both the side have declared before the Court that their respective clients desired that the matter may be disposed of accordingly. 7. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, the Award passed by the Labour Court shall stand modified to the effect that the employer shall pay the amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement within a period of one month from today, but with the clarification that the amount already paid by way of compliance to the condition under Section 17(B) of the Act shall not be recovered by the employer from the workman. 8. Both the petitions are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.