Order: 1. All the above four writ petitions came to the posted as "specially ordered cases" by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, vide order, dated 08.11.2012. In all these four writ petitions, the petitioner is the Management of Chevalier T.Thomas Educational Trust, Represented by its Correspondent and Managing Trustee. 2. Before going into the merits of the issue raised, it is necessary to deal with the status of the petitioner-Trust. 3. The petitioner-Trust is running several schools and colleges on self-financing basis. Since there was dispute among the trustees, a suit was filed before the Original Side, in the year 1987, for framing a scheme for the Trust. Subsequently, the suit was decreed by a Division Bench on 04.12.1995. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration and for framing a draft scheme, in Civil Appeal No.16758 of 1996, dated 27.10.1999. On such remand, the Division Bench of this Court, in OSA No.49 of 1995, framed a scheme, on 05.12.2002, and a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as a Chairman of the Trust. 4. Subsequently, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, vide judgment in T.Varghese George vs. Kora K.George and Others, reported in 2012 (1) SCC 369 . The Supreme Court, upheld the decision of the Division Bench, holding that the petitioner-Trust is a secured public charitable trust and the scheme framed by this Court was valid. Even the subsequent Review Petitions were also disposed of, by the Supreme Court, on 07.02.2012 and 04.09.2012. Therefore, it can be seen that right from the year 1987, till the matter was resolved by the Supreme Court in 2012, the Trust was facing legal controversies regarding its management. 5. It is, at this juncture, the contesting respondent (Tmt.P.Ponnamma) raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2 (a) (2) of the Industrial Disputes (I.D.) Act, alleging that she was appointed as a typist on 05.06.1990, and her last drawn salary was Rs.400/-. But, however, she was abruptly stopped from work in the year 1991, after a period of one year service and for effecting such non-employment, no legal procedure was followed. The said dispute was taken on file as I.D.No.1174 of 1991, by the Principal Labour Court. But, however, she was abruptly stopped from work in the year 1991, after a period of one year service and for effecting such non-employment, no legal procedure was followed. The said dispute was taken on file as I.D.No.1174 of 1991, by the Principal Labour Court. Though the petitioner-Trust appeared and filed a counter statement, but when the matter was taken up on 19.04.1999, as there was no representation, they were set exparte and the contesting workman was examined as W.W.1 and through her, seven documents were marked and the Labour Court, passed an award, on 19.04.1999, directing reinstatement of the workman into service with back-wages and continuity of service. 6. Even though it was an exparte award, no steps were taken by the petitioner-Trust in setting aside the exparte award, which led the petitioner filing a claim petition, seeking the benefit of monetary benefits, arising out of the exparte award. 7. The contesting respondent's claim petition filed under Section 33 (c) (2) was numbered as C.P.No.734 of 1991 and on the basis of that, she is entitled for Government scale of pay. The Labour Court computed her last drawn wages at Rs.1,120/- and calculated the total dues of payment at Rs.17,280/-, as payable to her. The petitioner-Trust, though challenged the same, before this Court, in W.P.No.4181 of 1995, the said writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.07.2001. This led to the petitioner filing another claim petition in C.P.No.523 of 1999, in which the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.5,60,220/-as payable to her, by the order dated 05.08.2002 and when such orders were not complied with, the workman approached the State Government, with a petition, under Section 33 (c) (1) of the Act, for recovering the amount as an arrear of land revenue. The State Government, by G.O.(T)No.270, Labour and Employment (A-1) Department, dated 25.02.2005, granted the Revenue Recovery Certificate, directing the District Collector, Chennai, to recover the amount. 8. It is, at this stage, the petitioner-Trust filed W.P.No.15497 of 2005. Instead of challenging the substantive order in that writ petition, they have challenged only the Revenue Recovery Certificate, dated 25.02.2005. This Court admitted the said writ petition, on 04.05.2005, and an order of interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner-Trust should deposit Rs.1,00,000/-to the credit of C.P.No.523 of 1999, within eight weeks. 9. It is admitted that the said amount has been deposited. This Court admitted the said writ petition, on 04.05.2005, and an order of interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner-Trust should deposit Rs.1,00,000/-to the credit of C.P.No.523 of 1999, within eight weeks. 9. It is admitted that the said amount has been deposited. Thereafter, the workman filed a vacate stay application in W.V.M.P.No.318 of 2007 seeking to vacate the interim order. In that, by an order, dated 14.09.2007, a learned Judge of this Court, directed the petitioner-Trust to deposit another sum of Rs.1,50,000/-to the credit of same C.P., within eight weeks and it is also admitted that the said amount has also been deposited. 10. In the meanwhile, the Trust woke up about their not having challenged the exparte award, which gave rise to the claim petition and also challenged the exparte award, dated 19.04.1999 in W.P.No.30322 of 2005 and that writ petition was admitted by this Court on 19.09.2005. However, the application for interim stay was dismissed by this Court, as the management has approached this Court, after a period of 14 years and it was dismissed, by an order, dated 15.06.2006. In view of the dismissal of the stay application, the workman filed subsequently, two other claim petitions in C.P.Nos.748 of 2002 and 25 of 2009. In C.P.No.748 of 2002, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs.4,56,589/- as dues payable to the workman and in C.P.No.25 of 2009, a sum of Rs.5,07,050/- was directed to be paid, by an order dated 29.06.2012. 11. In both the claim petitions, the Labour Court was of the view that the award, directing reinstatement of the workman, was though under challenge, there was no interim order granted by this Court and therefore, the award is unenforceable. Challenging these two claim petitions, the successive two writ petitions came to be filed. 12. It is, when these two writ petitions came up on 08.11.2012, this Court, on finding that the previous writ petitions are pending, directed all to be grouped together and accordingly, these matters were grouped together and they were directed to be posted by this Court, as Specially Ordered Cases, as per the directions of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice. 13. The petitioner-Trust also filed W.P.M.P.No.222 of 2011 seeking permission to rise additional grounds. 14. 13. The petitioner-Trust also filed W.P.M.P.No.222 of 2011 seeking permission to rise additional grounds. 14. Heard the arguments of Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, Senior counsel, for Mr.S.Selvaraj, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Trust and Mr.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent (Tmt.P.Ponnamma). 15. Learned senior counsel for the workman strongly objected that, at this point of time, even though it is an exparte award, the same cannot be set-aside and the management is guilty of 14 years delay in coming to this Court. 16. However, a perusal of the exparte award clearly shows that the Labour Court did not keep in mind, the efficacy of Rule 48 (2) of the I.D. Rules, 1958, and did not discuss, as to the nature of the non-employment, as to how the workman was entitled for the claim of reinstatement, especially, when she had been appointed only on temporary capacity by the Trust, that too with a salary of Rs.400/-. 17. The contention raised by the petitioner-Trust was that, there was no permanent post of Typist in the Trust and the workman's husband wanted the workman to get trained in the Trust and wanted at least a part-time employment and only on that basis, she was given the post of typist. She did not have the requisite qualification prescribed for the post and her appointment itself was illegal. There is also a dispute regarding her age at the time of entry into service. 18. Learned counsel for the workman fairly admitted that the workman is, at present, 65 years old. 19. Therefore, assuming that this Court is setting aside the award, on terms, and remanding the matter for fresh disposal to the Labour Court, there is no possibility of the workman going back to service. At the same time, the Trust is also guilty of delay and laches in coming to this Court. 20. Under the said circumstances, the only way to resolve the dispute is to sustain the award, but, at the same time, modify the relief granted to the workman. 21. Admittedly, the workman was in service for a period of only one year, as Typist and her last drawn salary was Rs.400/-only. Even if she is entitled to succeed in the Labour Court, in such circumstances, the Labour Court need not have ordered reinstatement that too with backwages, considering the nature of employment. 21. Admittedly, the workman was in service for a period of only one year, as Typist and her last drawn salary was Rs.400/-only. Even if she is entitled to succeed in the Labour Court, in such circumstances, the Labour Court need not have ordered reinstatement that too with backwages, considering the nature of employment. The Labour Court also has discretion to award a lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 22. Since the Labour Court has not chosen to exercise the said discretion, considering the nature of employment and the tenure of service as well as the petitioner, being the public Trust, this Court is of the view that the award directing reinstatement with back-wages and continuity of service should stand modified and the workman must be entitled to be paid a compensation, in lieu of her reinstatement. 23. In the said circumstances, the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifth thousand only) is awarded to be paid by the petitioner-Trust to the workman (P.Ponnamma), as full and final settlement, of all her claims. Since already the amount is in deposit with the Labour Court in C.P.No.523 of 1999 before the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai, the workman is entitled to withdraw the entire amount lying in deposit in the Labour Court, together with the accrued interest thereon. 24. In the result, (i) W.P.Nos.30322 of 2005 and 15497 of 2005 stand disposed of and (ii) W.P.Nos.30227 and 30228 of 2012 stand allowed, by quashing the impugned orders, dated 17.11.2008 and 29.06.2012, passed by the second respondent in C.P.No.748 of 2002 and C.P.No.25 of 2009, respectively. No costs. Consequently, all the connected MPs and WPMP stand closed.