ORDER : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 12.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 19366 of 2006, whereby the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded in the order has dismissed the petition. 2. We have heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mayur Raj guru, learned counsel appearing upon advance copy on behalf of the respondent. 3. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Munshaw was that the respondent-workman was engaged as daily wager. By now about 25-26 years have passed and therefore, order for reinstatement should be interfered with and the Court may modulate the relief for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement even if it is found that there was violation of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and another v. Gitam Singh, reported at (2013) 5 SCC 136 and it was submitted that this Court may interfere. 4. Before we proceed to consider the facts of the present case we may record that in the above referred decision in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation, the Apex Court carved out an exception for modulating relief of reinstatement by substituting lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, but while doing so the Apex Court at para 27, inter Alia, observed that 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, the 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. After observing the same the Apex Court in the facts of that case further recorded at para 29 as under: " .... the workman was engaged as daily wager on 1.3.1991 and he worked hardly for eight months from 1.3.1991 to 31.10.1991, in our view, the Labour Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion appropriately... .." Thereafter, the Apex Court found it proper to award lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. the workman was engaged as daily wager on 1.3.1991 and he worked hardly for eight months from 1.3.1991 to 31.10.1991, in our view, the Labour Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion appropriately... .." Thereafter, the Apex Court found it proper to award lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Conjoint reading of paras 27 and 29 of the above referred decision of the Apex Court shows that after considering the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground of termination and the delay in raising industrial dispute, the Labour Court may exercise judicial discretion as to whether reinstatement should be ordered or lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 5. Let us now further examine the facts of the present case as it has come on record. It is true that the respondent-workman was engaged as daily wager, but the workman had worked for about five years and the termination was made on 29.07.1989. Dispute is immediately raised in the year 1989 and it was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication in the very year, viz. 1989 being Reference No. 1968 of 1989, but subsequently new number was given in the year 1996. Further, it is apparent from the evidence produced on behalf of the workman which has not been contradicted to the effect that even after termination, the work of delivery boy had continued. Therefore, it may also amount to breach of provisions of 25G of the Act. The case of the workman was that he had gone for joining duty, but was not permitted to join duty and before the Labour Court the appellant could not prove that the workman had abandoned duty and the Labour Court upon evidence of the workman with the relevant documents found that it was a case of termination. However, the Labour Court while modulating the relief has not awarded any back wages and reinstatement is only awarded. The award is passed on 01.04.2006. On account of pendency of main Special Civil Application No. 19366 of 2006 time is consumed, since interim stay was granted by this Court and ultimately the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 12.06.2015. 6. The award is passed on 01.04.2006. On account of pendency of main Special Civil Application No. 19366 of 2006 time is consumed, since interim stay was granted by this Court and ultimately the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 12.06.2015. 6. In view of the aforesaid peculiar circumstances which did not exist in the matter before the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation (supra), we do not find that the said decision would be of any help to the appellant. 7. Apart from the above, in view of the facts and circumstances duly proved before the Labour Court that after termination, work had continued and that the workman had raised dispute immediately and that the workman had worked for a period of five years, we find that the Labour Court did not commit any error in exercise of discretion for grant of relief of reinstatement and hence the same is rightly not interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 8. Under the circumstances, no case is made out for interference. Hence the appeal is meritless and therefore, is dismissed. Letters Patent dismissed.