JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. Award dated 30.12.2010 passed by the learned P.O., Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No.5 of 2010 vide Annexure-1 is impugned by the Management in this writ petition. 2. The opposite party workman was working as a D.L.R. under the petitioner Management, i.e. Executive Engineer, Kalahandi Irrigation Division, Bhawanipatna. He was terminated from his service with effect from 01.06.2000. In the statement of claim filed by the opposite party workman it is alleged that he started his work as a D.L.R. in the year 1987 under Kanjhari Irrigation Project, Keonjhar. Subsequently he was posted at Bankabahal Irrigation Project, Rairangpur in the year 1991. In the year 1993 he was posted at Subarnarekha Irrigation Project. Thereafter he was transferred to Lower Indra (Dam) Investigation Sub-Division No.II in the year 1998. Said Sub-Division subsequently merged with Kalahandi Irrigation Division, the present Management. Kalahandi Irrigation Division thus became the Employer / Management of the opposite party workman. From the statement of claim it is further found out that the opposite party workman was working since 1987 as D.L.R., Semi-skilled Mate and receiving the wages prescribed for Semi-skilled workers by the Government at different times. On the date of his illegal termination he was getting wages of Rs.1040/-(one thousand forty) per month @ Rs.40/-per day, which was the prescribed wage for the semi-skilled workers. The Management without complying with the provision of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short) illegally terminated the services of the opposite party workman w.e.f. 01.06.2000. It is asserted in the statement of claim that the opposite party workman has completed his employment for 240 days during the year preceding the date of retrenchment. In such background, the opposite party workman prayed for an order directing the petitioner Management to reinstate him in his service with back wages. 3. The petitioner Management contested the case and filed written statement. As per the written statement of the petitioner Management, no record is available in the office of the Management regarding engagement of the opposite party workman as D.L.R. The statement of claim relates to work by the opposite party workman in Kanjhari Irrigation Project, Keonjhar, Bankabahal Irrigation Project, Rairangpur and Subarnarekha Irrigation Project, which are not within the administrative jurisdiction of Kalahandi Irrigation Division, Bhawanipatna. No transfer order was received from the higher authorities regarding transfer of the opposite party workman to Indra (Dam) Investigation Sub-Division No.II in the year 1998. There is no such record available in the office of the Management regarding payment of wages to the opposite party workman. It is however admitted in the written-statement that Lower Indra (Dam) Investigation Sub-Division No.II is under the control of the Executive Engineer, Kalahandi Investigation Division, Bhawanipatna. The petitioner Management thus prayed not to consider the case in favour of the opposite party workman. 4. The opposite party workman filed rejoinder stating therein that the petitioner Management has admitted in the written statement that Lower Indra (Dam) Investigation Sub-Division No.II having been merged with Kalahandi Irrigation Division, the Management, i.e. Kalahandi Irrigation Division becomes the employer of the opposite party workman. The opposite party workman examined three witnesses besides exhibiting number of documents vide Exts.W1 to W7 to substantiate his case. The opposite party workman examined himself as W.W.1, one Dhruba Charan Behera working in Work-charged Irrigation Department, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi as W.W.2 and one Bidyadhar Behera, N.M.R., Irrigation Department, Bhawanipatna as W.W.3. 5. The petitioner Management on the other hand examined Sri Surendra Kumar Sahu, Junior Engineer, Kalahandi Irrigation Division as M.W.1. 6. On consideration of the evidence adduced and materials on record, learned P.O., Labour Court, Sambalpur passed the award of reinstatement of the petitioner by the Management without any back wages. 7. The petitioner Management has impugned the award on the ground that the opposite party workman having not been engaged under the petitioner Management in accordance with law following the due procedure of selection and there being no control and supervision of the petitioner Management over Kanjhari Irrigation Project, Keonjhar, Bankabahal Irrigation Project, Rairangpur and Subarnarekha Irrigation Project, the opposite party workman is treated differently unlike the regular workers / employees of the petitioner Management, those who have been engaged in accordance with law. 8. Learned Additional Govt. Advocate relies on the case of Asst. Engineer, Rajastan Development Corporation vs. Geetam Singh, 2013 I.L.R. 225, to substantiate his contention that, even if there has been non-compliance of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, award of reinstatement could not have been passed in the present case and, instead some lump sum compensation could have been made to meet the ends of justice. Engineer, Rajastan Development Corporation vs. Geetam Singh, 2013 I.L.R. 225, to substantiate his contention that, even if there has been non-compliance of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, award of reinstatement could not have been passed in the present case and, instead some lump sum compensation could have been made to meet the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the opposite party workman on the other hand supports the impugned award and submits that the award of reinstatement is justified and there is no infirmity or patent error in the award recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court. 9. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, with all his fairness, does not dispute the contravention of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. He does not challenge the award of merit so far as 240 days of continuous work by the opposite party workman, in a calendar year, preceding the date of his retrenchment is concerned. He further submits that the opposite party workman having approached the Labour Machinery with much delay and much development having taken place in the meantime, the order of reinstatement is bad in law and proper relief justifying ends of justice would have been lump sum payment of compensation. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Asst. Engineer, Rajastan Development Corporation (supra) was seized with the question whether the direction to the employer for reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% back wages was legally sustainable where a workman had worked only for eight months as a daily wager and his termination had been held to be in contravention of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Partly allowing the appeal filed by the Management, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, in a case of wrongful retrenchment of a daily wager, who worked for a short period, the award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief and rather award of compensation in such cases would be in consonance with demand of justice. Before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, ground on which the termination has been set aside and the delay in raising the industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute. 11. The opposite party workman on being examined as W.W.1 has supported the statement of claim. 11. The opposite party workman on being examined as W.W.1 has supported the statement of claim. He has deposed that he started working in the year 1987 under Kanjhari Irrigation Project, Keonjhar, thereafter at Bankabahal Irrigation Project, Rairangpur and thereafter at Subarnarekha Irrigation Division. In the year 1998 he was transferred to Indra (Dam) Investigation Sub-Division No.II, which subsequently merged with Kalahandi Irrigation Division (petitioner Management). With effect from 01.06.2000 the opposite party workman was illegally retrenched by the Management from his work without any prior notice and without complying the provision of Section 25-F of the Act. W.W.2, who is working in Work-charged Irrigation Division at Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi, has deposed that he knows the opposite party workman, who was working in Tikhali Project under Nuapada district since 1998 for three years under the Irrigation Department. By that time he was drawing his salary as N.M.R. Mate from the Executive Engineer, Kalahandi Irrigation Division, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi. W.W.3, who is an N.M.R. in the Irrigation Department, Bhawanipatna, in his evidence has deposed that the opposite party workman was working as a D.L.R. at Tikhali Project since 1998, which was under Bhawanipatna Executive Engineer, Kahalandi. According to the finding of learned P.O., Labour Court, evidence of these witnesses have not been demolished in any manner so far as incumbency of the opposite party workman as a D.L.R. under the petitioner Management from 1998 till his date of retrenchment on 01.06.2000 is concerned. Besides the oral evidence, the petitioner has adduced documentary evidence vide Ext. W1, which is Xerox copy of the Log Book. M.W.1, the representative of the Management stated in his evidence that the signatures of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Executive Engineer of Kalahandi Irrigation Project / Division are reflected in Ext. W1, but he has no knowledge whether any such officials have put their signatures on Ext. W1 series. He further admitted in his evidence that, such Log Book vide Ext. W1 is available in Khariar Investigation Sub-Division. Ext. W2 is the Xerox copy of the hand-writing of the Junior Engineer and Sub-Divisional Officer, which has been identified by M.W.1. Ext. W3 is the Xerox copy of Experience Certificate issued by the Executive Engineer (C), Kanjhari Irrigation Project, Keonjhar. Ext. W4 is the Experience Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bankabahal Irrigation Project No.II, Rairangpur. Ext. W2 is the Xerox copy of the hand-writing of the Junior Engineer and Sub-Divisional Officer, which has been identified by M.W.1. Ext. W3 is the Xerox copy of Experience Certificate issued by the Executive Engineer (C), Kanjhari Irrigation Project, Keonjhar. Ext. W4 is the Experience Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bankabahal Irrigation Project No.II, Rairangpur. Ext.W5 is the Experience Certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, P.M. Sub-Division No.1, Deuli in favour of the opposite party workman. Ext.W6 is the Xerox copy of the Letter to the second-party workman. Ext.W7 is the Xerox copy of Letter to the workman. M.W.1 stated in his evidence that there is no such document regarding appointment of D.L.R. available in their Department nor any record maintained by the Management for payment of wages to the D.L.R. employees. However, he does not find the signatures which are marked as Ext.W-6/a, Ext.W-7-a, Ext.W-2/b and Ext.W-2/c in the concerned document. M.W.1 also admitted that he has issued Letters, i.e. Ext.W-6 and Ext.W-7 to the opposite-party workman, and Ext.W-6/a and Ext.W-7/a are his signatures on the respective documents. Besides that, M.W.1 further admitted that he entrusted some work to the opposite party workman in his official capacity in different Sub-Divisions, but he has no knowledge whether opposite party workman was discharging his duties in different Sub-Divisions being directed by the S.D.O., Irrigation and J.E., Sub-Division. Such evidence of M.W.1 indicates that, being engaged by the S.D.O. and J.E., Irrigation Sub-Division, the opposite party workman proceeded to the said Sub-Division and Projects to work. All such evidence clearly shows that the opposite party workman was working under the petitioner Management since 1998, and the Management has refused to allow him to work w.e.f. 01.06.2000. From the evidence however it is not clear as to what was the mode and manner of appointment of the opposite party workman. The claim of the workman that he was working since 1987 in different Irrigation Projects is shrouded under mist inasmuch as except Exts.W3, W4 and W5, the Experience Certificates, there is nothing on record to prove such facts. For the purpose of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act, however, the length of service of the opposite party workman from 1998 to 01.06.2000 under the petitioner Management is relevant and that has been properly taken care of by the learned P.O., Labour Court. For the purpose of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act, however, the length of service of the opposite party workman from 1998 to 01.06.2000 under the petitioner Management is relevant and that has been properly taken care of by the learned P.O., Labour Court. Learned P.O., Labour Court has also not ruled regarding the fact that the workman has been working in the Establishment since 1987. The opposite party workman has adduced no evidence regarding the mode and manner of his appointment. If all these materials are taken into consideration, coupled with the fact that the industrial dispute has been raised after much delay and much development has taken place in the meantime so far as public employment is concerned, I deem it proper to award some lump sum compensation to the workman instead of reinstatement to justify the ends of justice. 12. The opposite party workman was getting Rs.1040/-(one thousand forty) per month @ Rs.40/-(forty) per day at the time of his retrenchment from service. He was out of service throughout the period, though there is no evidence regarding his gainful engagement during the interreganum. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, rising price index, raised daily-wages according to the Government prescription in the meantime, and all other facts, I deem it proper to award lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh only) to the opposite party workman in lieu of his reinstatement. 13. In the result, the impugned award is accordingly modified. The opposite party workman is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh) in lump sum towards compensation in lieu of his reinstatement in service. The amount be paid to the opposite party workman within a period of two months from today, failing which the award shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.