Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—To question correctness of the judgment dated 22.9.2014 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8197/2012, this appeal is preferred. 2. Though the appeal is barred by limitation from 67 days, we considered the same on merits. 3. The Appropriate Government under a Notification dated 04.3.2005 referred an industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court, Bikaner in following terms :- “Whether any relationship of workman and employer exists between the applicant and the non-applicant? Whether the applicant completed a service of 240 days in one calendar year before his termination of service? If yes, then whether the termination of workman Baldev Singh w.e.f. 05.02.2001 by his employer the Project Officer (Ground Water), Command Area Development Department, Bikaner is just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled ?” 4. As per the workman, by an oral order dated 5.11.1990 he was employed with Ground Water Department and his services were utilized as Lab Assistant and Class-IV employee. At the time of initial appointment, the employer paid wages @ Rs.22/- per day and the same was enhanced w.e.f. 01.9.1995. On 5.2.2001 he was retrenched from service without assigning any reason. By placing certain documents on record, the workman supported his facts. It was stated by the workman that before terminating him from service, the employer did not adhere the mandatory conditions precedent to effect retrenchment as prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947'). An allegation was also made for non-compliance of the provisions of Sec. 25-G and 25H of the Act of 1947. 5. The employer contested the case with stand that in the year 1991 the workman remained in employment only for 70 days and thereafter he did not complete 240 days in any one calender year. 6. Looking to the stand taken by the employer, the Labour Court directed the employer to produce all relevant muster-rolls before it, but inspite of that, muster-rolls were not produced. The Labour Court under its award dated 30.11.2001, after examining the material available on record, gave a finding of fact that the workman was in continuous employment of the employer and he was retrenched from service without adhering the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court under its award dated 30.11.2001, after examining the material available on record, gave a finding of fact that the workman was in continuous employment of the employer and he was retrenched from service without adhering the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court also arrived at the conclusion that no seniority list of the workmen as per Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 was prepared and, therefore, the employer also violated the provisions of Section 25G of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court declared retrenchment of the workman illegal, accordingly, the same was set aside. A direction was given to the employer to reinstate the workman in service, but without back wages. A sum of Rs.5000/- was awarded as the cost of litigation. 7. While dismissing the writ petition preferred by the employer giving challenge to the award dated 30.11.2001, learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that the findings given by the Labour Court being based on adequate appreciation of facts does not require any interference while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the workman was in employment on contractual basis for a very short period and the practice of maintaining muster-rolls was not in vogue since the year 1994, hence, there was no occasion for the employer to produce the same. It is asserted that on behalf of the employer several documents were placed on record to establish that the workman never remained in continuous service of the employer, but those were not taken into consideration and further that so far as maintenance of seniority list as per Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1958 is concerned, the workman did not name the person junior to him who would have been retained in service, hence, non-maintenance of the list is immaterial. Beside the above, much emphasis is given by learned counsel that the Labour Court could have allowed compensation in lieu of reinstatement as the employer was not having any regular vacancy to re-employ the workman. 9. Heard learned counsels. 10. Beside the above, much emphasis is given by learned counsel that the Labour Court could have allowed compensation in lieu of reinstatement as the employer was not having any regular vacancy to re-employ the workman. 9. Heard learned counsels. 10. So far as the issue with regard to continuous service of the workman is concerned, a definite finding of fact is given by the Labour Court to the effect that he remained in employment of the employer for a pretty long time and he completed continuous service as defined under Section 25-B of the Act of 1947 and that has been affirmed by learned Single Bench, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with that. 11. So far as the relief part is concerned, the Labour Court has given direction for reinstatement of the workman without back wages. It is not in dispute that in Ground Water Department, appointment to the post of Class-IV employee could have been given either as per the Rules framed by the Governor of Rajasthan exercising powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or by adhering the procedure given in Rajasthan Public Works (Building and Roads including Garden, Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic) Department Workcharged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Rules of 1964'). Appointment to the respondent-workman was not given under any of the Rules, hence, he was not employed against any existing vacancy. He would have been employed only to meet some emergent need on casual basis. In such circumstances, the appropriate relief that could have been given to the workman was compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 12. The respondent-workman is presently of 42 years of age and if in compliance of the directions given by the Labour Court he be reinstated in service, he may be retrenched by following necessary procedure given under the Act of 1947. In that event, the employer have to pay compensation for the entire period of service, i.e. since 1990. if the employer continue him in service, then he will remain in employment on daily-rate basis and shall at the most be allowed to continue as such upto the age of 60 years. Meaning thereby, that as a consequence to reinstatement he will earn wages for the coming 18 years. if the employer continue him in service, then he will remain in employment on daily-rate basis and shall at the most be allowed to continue as such upto the age of 60 years. Meaning thereby, that as a consequence to reinstatement he will earn wages for the coming 18 years. By taking into consideration all these facts, we deem it appropriate to award a lumpsum compensation to the workman in lieu of reinstatement in service. The compensation in a tune of Rs.3 lacs shall be appropriate for that purpose. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 30.11.2011 is modified to the extent that directs the employer for reinstatement of workman in service. The workman shall be entitled for a compensation in a tune of Rs.3 Lacs in lieu of reinstatement in service. The compensation awarded is required to be paid to the workman on or before 01.09.2015. In the event of failure to make payment of compensation within the period prescribed, the workman shall be entitled to have interest thereon @ 9.5% per annum and the interest shall be computed from the date of award, i.e. 30.11.2001.