JUDGMENT 1. -None is present on behalf of petitioner- State/employer (Mahi Project, Banswara) 2. It is indeed unfortunate state of affairs that in old matters, the desired attention and preparation of the counsel/s is not available. 3. By the impugned judgment and award dated 24.10.1998, the learned Industrial Dispute Tribunal and Labour Court, Udaipur, has held that the termination of the respondents/workmen having worked as 'Beldar' for the period 01.01.1980 to 30.09.1987 was in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1947'), the learned Tribunal directed their reinstatement back in service with effect from 06.04.1992 with 50% back wages and if the payment is not made within two months from that date, it will bear 12% interest per annum. The petitioner/employer being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award has filed the present writ petition in this Court on 27.05.1999. The operative portion of the impugned judgment and award reads as under:- " mijksDr okn fcUnqvksa ds foospu ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ ds i{k esa ,oa foi{kh ds fo:) bl vk'k; dk iapkV ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd izkFkhZ&Jfedj.k dks iqu% lsok esa cgky fd;k tkos] ijUrq muds i{k esa 06-04-1992 ls iwoZ dh vof/k dk osru fnyk;k tkuk U;k;laxr ugha le>k tkrk gSA pwafd lsok ls i`FkDdhdj.k ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZx.k }kjk foi{kh ds ;gka dksbZ dk;Z ugha fd;k x;k gS blfy;s izkFkhZx.k dks 06&04&1992 ls iqu% cgkyh ds e/; dh vof/k dk vk/kkj osru (50% back wages) fnyk;k tkrk gSA ;fn fu;kstd }kjk cdk;k osru dk Hkqxrku iapkV izd'ku ds nks ekg dh vof/k esa ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks izkFkhZx.k bl jkf'k ij rkjh[k fu.kZ; ls rkjh[k vnk;xh rd 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA blds vykok izkFkhZx.k dks nks gtkj :i;s okn ds O;; ds :i esa foi{kh fu;kstd ls fnyk;s tkrs gSA " 4. 15 years have since passed by now. The writ petition was admitted by a coordinate bench of this Court on 25.11.1999, however, no interim relief was given to the petitioner/employer. 5. 15 years have since passed by now. The writ petition was admitted by a coordinate bench of this Court on 25.11.1999, however, no interim relief was given to the petitioner/employer. 5. Since, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/workmen was not in position to make any statement before this Court as to whether in compliance of the award of the Tribunal, the respondents/workmen have been reinstated back in service or not and whether they have been paid the back wages to the extent of 50% or not. 6. Having perused the record and the impugned award, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned judgment and award. However, this Court is of the opinion that award of 50% back wages and reinstatement back in service at this stage after so many years, is not called for in view of recent trend of the Hon'ble Apex Court in such cases of late now, the consistent view is that the reinstatement in such circumstances after long number of years, is not justified and in lieu of reinstatement, suitable compensation may be given to the retrenched workmen. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sub- Divisional Officer, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer v. Ashok Kumar and Anr., (DBSAW No.103/2006, decided on 19.11.2012) following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation v. Mamni reported in AIR 2006 SC 2427 : (2006) 9 SCC 434 LNIND 2006 SC 338 : 2006-II-LLJ-390 and in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. M.C. Joshi reported in (2007) 9 SCC 353 : LNIND 2007 SC 228 : 2007-II-LLJ-390 , while modifying the award of the labour court, instead of reinstatement, directed to make payment of Rs. 35000/- to the respondent/workman towards compensation. The relevant and operative portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is quoted herein below for ready reference:- "After having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, while we are not inclined to consider interference in the basic findings on facts by the Labour Court but then, on the question of final relief, in an overall comprehension of the matter, we are of opinion that the Labour Court ought to have considered the alternative mode of granting compensation in lieu of in restatement. x x x x x x In view of considerable lapse of time and looking to the nature of the engagement of the respondent-workman, in the present case, in our opinion, awarding of compensation in lieu of reinstatement would meet the ends of justice. In the fact situation of the present case and in the totality of the circumstances, it appears just and proper to substitute the final relief as granted in the award impugned by that of lump-sum compensation of Rs. 35,000/- in lieu of reinstatement. Accordingly and in view of the above, this appeal is partly allowed. The award is maintained on the basic finding but is modified in relation to the final relief; and, instead of reinstatement, the appellant is directed to make payment of an amount of Rs. 35,000/- (thirty five thousand) to the respondent-workman towards compensation. It shall be required of the appellant to make payment of the amount of compensation as awarded hereinabove as early as possible; and preferably before The amount of compensation, if not paid on or before 31.01.2013, shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order until the date of payment". 8. Here in the present case in hand, since the respondents/workmen cannot be given the back wages in absence of any proof led by them before the learned Tribunal that they were not in gainful employment during the said period of retrenchment. Therefore, while disposing of the present writ petition of the State, in the absence of any assistance provided by the Govt. Counsel, the relief granted by the Industrial Tribunal to the workmen is moulded to the effect that the respondents/workmen shall be paid the lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each, namely, Dhanji S/o Nagji, Varsheg S/o Nagji, Mogji S/o Badia, Bapu S/o Kalu and Rama S/o Deepa, all workmen through Mahi Shramik Sangh, Banswara, within a period of three months from today in lieu of relief of reinstatement with back wages. The said compensation shall be borne to the extent of 50% by the concerned Executive Engineer, of the said Mahi Project, Banswara, who had illegally retrenched the services of the respondents/workmen on 06.04.1992 and remaining 50% by the State. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner-State/employer is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******