Judgment Alok Singh, J. (Oral) MCC No. 750 of 2014 For the reason stated in the application, order dated 26.08.2014, whereby restoration application as well as application seeking condonation of delay in moving the restoration, were dismissed for non prosecution, is recalled. Restoration application as well as delay condonation application seeking condonation of delay are restored to its original number. CLMA No. 11099 of 2012 Restoration application no. 581 of 2011 was dismissed for non prosecution on 09.08.2012. Therefore, present restoration application to restore earlier restoration application no. 581 of 2011 was moved with the application seeking condonation of delay of 32 days. Mr. Mohd. Umar and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents have no serious objection if delay in moving the restoration application is condoned. Therefore, for the reason stated in the application, CLMA No. 11099 of 2012 is allowed. Delay in moving the restoration application MCC No. 801 of 2012 is condoned. MCC No. 801 of 2012 It is stated in the application that clerk of the counsel for the petitioner could not mark the case, therefore, none remained present on behalf of the petitioner on 09.08.2012, and ultimately MCC No. 581 of 2011 was dismissed for want of prosecution. Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for the OPs has no serious objection if order dated 09.08.2012 is recalled and application is restored to its original number. Consequently, MCC No. 801 of 2012 is allowed. Order dated 09.08.2012 is recalled. MCC No. 581 of 2011 is restored to its original number. MCC No. 581 of 2011 Mr. Mohd. Umar, learned counsel for the respondent has no serious objection if order dated 02.07.2008 dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution is recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number. He, however, submits that writ petition may be heard and disposed of today itself. For the reason stated in the application, application is allowed. Order dated 02.07.2008 is recalled. WPMS No. 1654 of 2001 is restored to its original number. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. The brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that workman/respondent no. 2 was working as daily-wager with the petitioner/employer with effect from 08.12.1990 to 31.10.1992. However, he was discontinued from the service from 01.11.1992 in violation of Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that workman/respondent no. 2 was working as daily-wager with the petitioner/employer with effect from 08.12.1990 to 31.10.1992. However, he was discontinued from the service from 01.11.1992 in violation of Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, on the request of workman a reference was made to the learned Labour Court, Haldwani to the effect, as to whether discontinuation/termination of the workman with effect from 01.11.1992 was illegal, if yes, what relief the workman would be entitled for? Learned Labour Court, having perused the entire record, came to the conclusion that workman had worked continuously for 240 days in 12 calendar months. Therefore, his services could have been discontinued or terminated only in accordance with Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Since, he was discontinued/terminated in violation of Section 6 N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, he was found entitled for the reinstatement but without any back wages. Feeling aggrieved, employer/petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly submitted that workman had worked as daily-wager for more than 240 days continuously in a 12 calendar months. However, Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned counsel for the petitioner/employer while placing the reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and another reported in 2014 (7) SCC 190 as well as in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal reported in 2014 (7) SCC 177 , submitted that since respondent no. 2 was working as a daily-wager, thus, instead of reinstatement one-time compensation ought to have been granted. I have carefully perused the judgment in the case of Hari Nandan Prasad as well as in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (supra). In both the judgments, Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that if workman was working as daily-wager or purely as temporary employee, then reinstatement should not be granted and one time compensation should be paid. In both the judgments, Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that if workman was working as daily-wager or purely as temporary employee, then reinstatement should not be granted and one time compensation should be paid. Undisputedly, in the present case, workman/respondent was working as daily-wager and he worked from 08.12.1990 to 31.10.1992 purely as daily wager, therefore, in my considered opinion, award passed by learned Labour Court should be modified to the extent that instead of reinstatement, workman would be paid one time compensation, which is assessed to be of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Therefore, present petition is allowed. Impugned award dated 28.09.1998 stands modified to the extent that instead of reinstatement, workman shall be paid one time compensation of Rs. 30,000/- within 90 days from today. If compensation is not paid within 90 days from today, the workman shall also be paid the interest at the rate of 10% per annum from today till the actual payment is made to the workman. CLMA No. 10766 of 2011 also stands disposed of accordingly.