JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. Heard Mr. Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present petition the petitioner company has challenged the award dated 11.5.2005 passed by learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (L.C.J) No. 209 of 1996 whereby learned labour Court directed the petitioner company to reinstate the respondent workman and to pay back wages @ 50%. 2.1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the said award and directions. 3. The factual background leading to present petition is that. 3.1 The respondent workman raised industrial dispute on the allegation that his service was illegally terminated. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to labour Court. After considering rival contentions and evidence on record the learned labour Court reached to the conclusion that the respondent workman established that his service was illegally terminated. Having reached such conclusion the learned labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent and to pay 50% back wages. The petitioner is aggrieved by said award and direction. Hence this petition. 4. So far as factual backdrop is concerned, the respondent workman claimed before learned Labour Court that he was working with petitioner company since last about 18 months as a 'Surveyor' and he was paid salary of Rs.1,650/- and his service came to be arbitrarily and abruptly terminated by oral order w.e.f. 20.4.1996. 4.1 The respondent workman alleged that before terminating his service neither any compensation was paid nor any departmental inquiry was conducted nor any procedure prescribed by law was followed. He also alleged that even any notice intimating him about termination was not given or any salary in lieu of notice was also not paid. The respondent workman also claimed that after he was illegally terminated w.e.f. 20.4.1996 he had served demand notice dated 16.5.1996 and claimed reinstatement however, neither he was reinstated nor his notice was replied. The respondent workman also alleged that while Junior workmen were retained, his service was arbitrarily terminated. He also alleged that subsequently other workmen were also recruited however he was not reinstated. 5. The petitioner company opposed the claim of the workman and denied the allegations raised by the respondent workman. The respondent workman also alleged that while Junior workmen were retained, his service was arbitrarily terminated. He also alleged that subsequently other workmen were also recruited however he was not reinstated. 5. The petitioner company opposed the claim of the workman and denied the allegations raised by the respondent workman. In its reply filed before the learned Labour Court the petitioner company claimed that it had not terminated service of the respondent and that therefore reference was premature since service of the respondent was not terminated. 5.1 The petitioner company also disputed the respondent's claim that he was working as Surveyor since last about 18 months and his salary was of Rs.1,650/- or that his service was illegally terminated w.e.f. 20.4.1996. The petitioner claimed that actually it was the respondent workman who on his own volition stopped reporting for work w.e.f. 20.4.1996 and thereafter he never reported for work. The petitioner also claimed that actually the petitioner company has retrenched about 27 workmen w.e.f July 1996 and that even if the respondent was regularly reporting for duty then also his service would have been terminated by way of retrenchment w.e.f. July 1996 with other workmen. The petitioner company claimed that the respondent worked until December 1995 with the petitioner and thereafter he did not report for work. On such grounds and facts the petitioner opposed the claim of the respondent workman. 6. The learned Labour Court considered the rival contentions and the evidence available on record. The learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the service of the respondent was terminated without following prescribed procedure by law and therefore above mentioned award and direction came to be passed. 7. Mr. Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner company submitted that the respondent was engaged and was working as casual worker and he was being engaged as and when required, as casual and additional hand. Mr. Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that during his entire tenure with the petitioner company the respondent had worked only for 189 days and that after 29.12.1995 the respondent did not work with the petitioner company and had voluntarily stoppled reporting for work. So as to support the said submissions, Mr. Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the statement submitted by Mr. So as to support the said submissions, Mr. Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the statement submitted by Mr. Sharma, Field Officer of the petitioner company wherein details for the day on which the petitioner was engaged were mentioned. Mr. Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondent had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months and that therefore there was no obligation to pay retrenchment compensation and thus, even if it is assumed that the petitioner terminated service of the respondent then also it cannot be claimed that the petitioner company committed breach of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because the respondent had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months. Mr. Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned labour Court failed to appreciate said aspect and without considering said fact passed direction obliging the petitioner to reinstate the respondent. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent reiterated the facts urged by the respondent workman in statement of claim viz. that the respondent's service was terminated w.e.f. 20.4.1996 and while terminating his service the petitioner had not followed any procedure prescribed by law. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that petitioner illegally terminated service of the respondent workman and since procedure prescribed by law was not followed, the award passed by learned labour Court is just and correct and there is no error in the award. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioner company failed to prove that the respondent had not worked for 240 days and that the respondent was not reporting for work after 29.12.1995 and that therefore the petitioner now cannot claim that the respondent had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months. 9. I have heard Mr. Raju, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent and also I have considered the material on record and the award impugned in present petition. 10. At the outset it is relevant to note that during the proceedings before learned labour Court, the Field Officer of the company Mr. Sharma had submitted a document on record before the learned Labour Court which allegedly contained and reflected total number of days for which the respondent worked with the petitioner company. 10. At the outset it is relevant to note that during the proceedings before learned labour Court, the Field Officer of the company Mr. Sharma had submitted a document on record before the learned Labour Court which allegedly contained and reflected total number of days for which the respondent worked with the petitioner company. According to the details mentioned by the petitioner company in the said statement, the respondent worked for 26 days in February 1995 and in March 1995 he worked for 26 days. According to the petitioner company the respondent did not work for any day during April 1995 and thereafter he worked for 22 days in May 1995 and 20 days in June 1995 and in July 1995 he worked for 26 days wherein August 1995 he did not work for any day. According to the said statement the respondent worked 21 days in September 1995 and did not work for a single day in October 1995 whereas in November 1995 he worked for 22 days and in December 1995 he worked 26 days. Thus, even according to the details mentioned by the petitioner company in the statement, the respondent had worked with the petitioner company since February 1995. The petitioner then claimed that the respondent stopped reporting for work after 29.12.1995. 10.1 On this count it is relevant to note that the petitioner company has not produced any material on record to demonstrate that the respondent was not reporting for work after 29th December 1995. 10.2 The learned labour Court has recorded that the petitioner company conveniently did not place on record the muster-roll from January 1996 to April 1996 wherefrom it could have been demonstrated as to whether the respondent had worked during said period or not. 10.3 It is pertinent to note that even on record of this petition the petitioner has not placed on record any document to establish its allegation that the respondent had (as claimed by it)stopped reporting for duty w.e.f. 29.12.1995, the petitioner company had issued any notice requiring the respondent to report for duty or informing him that if he does not report for duty then his conduct of remaining absent without leave will be treated as misconduct and he will be deemed to have abandoned the service. 10.4 It is also pertinent that when the respondent workman served demand notice to the petitioner, the petitioner company had an opportunity to come out with the fact in reply to the respondent's demand notice however, demand notice issued by the respondent whereby he claimed to be reinstated, was not answered by the petitioner company. In response to the demand notice the petitioner company did not inform the respondent who had not reported for duty after 29.12.1995 and petitioner had not terminated his service and that therefore question of reinstatement does not arise and it was open to him to report for duty if he so desired. 11. However, such response or any other response disputing the allegations by the respondent was not given by the petitioner company at the relevant time. 11.1 In light of such facts and in view of the conduct or response or lack of response by the company its explanation or reply or defence of the company on the round of alleged abandonment of service is not sustainable. Even in its written statement, the petitioner company did not make an offer the respondent to resume duty. 12. Moreover, as recorded by learned Labour Court the petitioner company failed to place on record the muster roll (presence register) for the period from January 1996 to April 1996. The petitioner company could have and ought to have placed the said document on record to demonstrate that it had not terminated his service but it was the respondent who was not reporting for work. However, the petitioner failed to place the said documents on record. 13. Under the circumstances the conclusion by the learned labour Court that the petitioner's claim that the respondent workman had not worked for 240 days cannot be accepted, cannot be faulted. 13.1 It is also relevant to note that according to the provision under model standing order the workman who completes service for 3/6 months, is required to be treated as permanent workman. 13.1 It is also relevant to note that according to the provision under model standing order the workman who completes service for 3/6 months, is required to be treated as permanent workman. 13.2 When all these aspects are taken into account then it becomes clear that the conclusion recorded by the learned labour Court that the petitioner company failed to establish that it was the respondent who stopped reporting for duty w.e.f. 29.12.1995 as well as the conclusion recorded by the learned labour Court that the petitioner company also failed to establish that the service of the respondent was put to an end after following prescribed procedure by law and the conclusion by the labour Court that the respondent had worked for not less than 240 days in preceding 12 months with the petitioner cannot be faulted. 14. When the deposition/evidence by the respondent workman is examined it emerges that the respondent workman categorically denied that he voluntarily remained absent from duty after December 1995 or that he had voluntarily abandoned the service. 14.1 It is pertinent that in his deposition the respondent workman categorically mentioned that while his service was terminated w.e.f. 20.4.1996, certain persons junior to him, whose names are mentioned by the respondent in his deposition, were continued in service. The respondent workman also claimed in his deposition that subsequently i.e. after his service was terminated the petitioner had engaged workmen. On that count the respondent workman mentioned names of two persons who were recruited/employed by the petitioner after his service was terminated. The respondent workman also asserted in his deposition that he had worked for 240 days. During his cross-examination the respondent had mentioned that about 10 to 12 persons were working with him and after his service was terminated they were continued in service. The respondent workman also mentioned name of the officer who terminated his service by oral order/instruction. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that the petitioner company had produced document (exhibit 30) before learned labour Court which reflected names of the persons who were working at the Bedi Port where the respondent was engaged. The said document purported to be seniority list of the workmen at Bedi Port. From the said document it emerges that in January and February 1996 two persons were employed by the petitioner. The said document purported to be seniority list of the workmen at Bedi Port. From the said document it emerges that in January and February 1996 two persons were employed by the petitioner. One person was employed in December 1995 and two persons were employed in November 1995 and four persons were employed in October 1995 in addition to other 16 workmen engaged from January 1995 to August 1995. The witness of the petitioner company i.e. Field Officer has stated in his evidence that the Company was ready to pay the salary and other dues up to 24.07.1996 i.e. when about 27 workmen were retrenched. 15. It is however, pertinent to note that there is no material on record on the strength of which it can be even inferred that the Company had retrenched any workman in July-1996. Thus, the submission based on the ground that the company has subsequently (in July 1996) retrenched some persons is not satisfactorily and conclusively established. 15.1 Learned advocate for the Petitioner-Company sought to rely on the document at Page No.31 of the petition to justify the submission that at Jamnagar about 27 persons were retrenched from different categories. However, when the said document is examined, it comes out that the said document at Page No.31 is a list of the persons who, according to the Petitioner's claim, were retrenched at Jamnagar. However, the said persons came to be retrenched with effect from 19th April, 2003 (i.e. almost 7 years after July-1996, which is claimed to be date of retrenchment of other workmen) and not with effect from 24.07.1996 as claimed in the statement of claim or by witness Mr.Sharma, who was examined by the Petitioner-Company. 15.2 Thus, the submission that several workmen were retrenched by the Company in July-1996 is not established by any documentary evidence except the statement made by the witness in his deposition and the document placed on record by the Petitioner-Company belies the claim that other workmen were retrenched in July-1996. 15.3 As mentioned earlier, another document which is available on record of the petition is the document at Page Nos. 22 and 23 which go to show that about 9 workmen were actually employed by the Petitioner-Company as new/fresh recruits, from October-1995 until February-1996. 15.3 As mentioned earlier, another document which is available on record of the petition is the document at Page Nos. 22 and 23 which go to show that about 9 workmen were actually employed by the Petitioner-Company as new/fresh recruits, from October-1995 until February-1996. 15.4 In view of the said fact also, it is not acceptable that the Petitioner-Company would retrench as many as 27 workmen in July-1996 when it had engaged fresh employees in February-1996. 15.5 In any case, as mentioned earlier, the document at Page No.31 belies the claim that any workman was retrenched in July-1996. Even the document (circular) dated 19th April,2003 at Page No.32 of the petition gives out that the workmen whose names are mentioned therein were retrenched from 19.04.2003. 15.6 Thus, the claim that workmen were retrenched in July-1996 is not proved and the said submission, in absence of any document is not acceptable and sustainable. 16. From the deposition by the witness of the Petitioner-Company, it comes out that 2 persons whose names were mentioned by the respondent workmen in support of the assertion that subsequently the Company had recruited some persons in different category and on different post and not on the same post and same work which the respondent workman performed. 17. From the foregoing discussion, 2 important facts emerge viz. (a) the Petitioner-Company has failed to establish that it was the respondent who had voluntarily stopped reporting for duty and had voluntarily abandoned service (b) that some workmen were retrenched with effect from 20.04.1996. 17.1 What emerges as corollary from the said 2 facts is that the service of the respondent-workman was terminated and it cannot be said, or accepted, that he had voluntarily abandoned the service. The petitioner has failed to prove its said claim. 18. In this context, it is necessary to keep in focus that the respondent-workman claimed that his service was terminated with effect from 20.04.1996, whereas the petitioner claimed that respondent stopped reporting for working from December-1995. On this Count, it is also relevant to recall that the Labour Court has recorded that the Petitioner-Company did not produce any document i.e. either muster roll or wage register or any other document to establish that the respondent had not reported for work after December-1995. Any other document for the period from January 1996 to April 1996 is also not placed on record. Any other document for the period from January 1996 to April 1996 is also not placed on record. 18.1 As discussed earlier, the petitioner Company never issued any notice or intimation or any other communication to the respondent stating that it was the respondent who was not reporting for the duty and/or it was the respondent who had voluntarily abandoned the service and/or if he resumed duty, he would be allowed to do so. 19. In absence of such action by the Petitioner-Company coupled with the above mentioned factual aspects, it has emerged from the record, there is no escape for the Petitioner-Company from the conclusion that the service of the respondent workman was terminated by oral order by the officer whose name is mentioned by the respondent in his deposition. 19.1 At this stage, it is necessary to note that the respondent workman specifically mentioned in his deposition name of the officer who terminated his service by oral instructions/order. The Petitioner- Company did not examine the said officer i.e. officer whose name was mentioned by the respondent workman as the person who orally terminated his service. The Petitioner-Company has not offered any explanation as to why the said officer was not presented as witness. 19.2 Thus, it appears that the Petitioner-Company consciously did not examine the witness who had, according to the specific assertion of the respondent, terminated him from the service. 19.3 When this Court cumulatively considers above mentioned aspect then it emerges that it is not possible to disagree with the conclusion recorded by the learned labour Court that the Petitioner-Company terminated the service of the respondent-workman. The said conclusion cannot be faulted. 20. When the above mentioned conclusion by the Labour Court is accepted then the question which arise is: whether the service of the petitioner was terminated by following procedure prescribed by law or not? Whether the service was terminated legally or there was any justification to terminate the service of the respondent. 21. On this count, it is relevant to note that the respondent-workman claimed and asserted that the service was terminated without following principle of natural justice and any departmental or domestic inquiry was not conducted against him before terminating his service. He also asserted in his deposition that any compensation was also not paid to him. 21. On this count, it is relevant to note that the respondent-workman claimed and asserted that the service was terminated without following principle of natural justice and any departmental or domestic inquiry was not conducted against him before terminating his service. He also asserted in his deposition that any compensation was also not paid to him. The respondent-Workman further asserted that any notice intimating about termination was not served or salary in lieu of notice was not paid and his service came to be terminated by oral instructions/order by Mr.Hardikar, officer of the respondent-workman. 22. Now, it is relevant to note that it is not even the case of the Petitioner-Company that respondent-Workman had indulged in any misconduct and that his service was terminated on account of misconduct. 22.1 It is also not the case even of the Petitioner- Company that before terminating the service of the respondent, any departmental/domestic inquiry was conducted. On the contrary, the Petitioner-Company claimed that the workman had voluntarily abandoned the service. The said defence is not established by the Petitioner-Company. 22.2 It is not even the case of the Petitioner-Company that before or while terminating the service of the respondent, retrenchment compensation was paid. 22.3 Thus, it is an admitted and undisputed position that the retrenchment compensation was not paid to the respondent-workman before or when his service came to be terminated. 23. In view of the fact that the service of the respondent was not terminated on account of any misconduct and/or on account of his resignation or continuous ill-health or on expiry of specific contract i.e. any exclusion prescribed under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act, the action of terminating the service of the respondent would amount to retrenchment. 23.1 Therefore, question would arise as to whether the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Dispute Act for retrenching workman was followed or complied with or not. 23.2 As mentioned earlier, it is undisputed or rather admitted position that compensation was not paid to the respondent before his service was terminated or when his service came to be terminated. 23.3 So as to come out from this defect, the petitioner sought to claim that the respondent had not worked for 240 days before his service came to be terminated. 24. 23.3 So as to come out from this defect, the petitioner sought to claim that the respondent had not worked for 240 days before his service came to be terminated. 24. In this context, it is relevant to recall and note that the Petitioner-Company, as recorded by the learned Labour Court did not place on record any document viz. Wage Register or Muster Roll for the period from 01.01.1995 to 20.04.1996. 24.1 Actually, any muster roll or wage register even for the period prior to 01.01.1995 was also not placed on record before the learned Labour Court. 24.2 However, merely by placing a summary/statement on record the petitioner sought to claim that the respondent had worked for 189 days from February-1995 to December-1995 and on the basis of the statement reflecting such summary of total number of days the respondent worked, the learned labour Court inferred and jumped to conclusion that the respondent had not worked for 240 days. The learned labour Court failed to appreciate that a statement cannot be substitute and cannot take place of primary evidence viz. muster roll and/or wage register. The learned Court erred in accepting the statement as evidence about the fact as to total number of days the respondent had worked, and that too in absence of any corroborating evidence. 24.3 Ordinarily, in absence of copies of muster roll, wherein presence of the workmen are recorded, such summery/statement cannot be considered as evidence about the working days completed by the workmen, however, even if such details are presumed to be correct, then also claim of the Petitioner-Company that the respondent had not completed 240 days cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent workman had stopped reporting for work and also in view of the fact that the petitioner also did not place on record relevant document for the period from 1.1.1996 to 20.4.1996 and that too despite the fact that the respondent had asserted that his service was terminated with effect from 20th April,1996. 24.4 The Petitioner-Company had opportunity to give appropriate reply to the respondent when he served the demand notice seeking reinstatement or when he allegedly stopped reporting for working (as claimed by the Petitioner Company) however, any contemporaneous evidence to contradict the claim and assertion of the respondent is not placed on record by the respondent. 24.4 The Petitioner-Company had opportunity to give appropriate reply to the respondent when he served the demand notice seeking reinstatement or when he allegedly stopped reporting for working (as claimed by the Petitioner Company) however, any contemporaneous evidence to contradict the claim and assertion of the respondent is not placed on record by the respondent. 24.5 Under the circumstances, conclusion by the learned Labour Court that the respondent's service was terminated with effect from 20th April, 1996, cannot be faulted. 24.6 When said period is taken into account, then the conclusion by the learned Labour Court that the respondent had completed work of 12 months (from February 1995 to April 1996) and 240 days before his service came to be terminated does not deserve to be interfered with, more particularly, when the company failed to place any material on record to establish the total number of days for which the respondent worked with the company. 24.7 As held by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State Bank of India v. Sundara Money, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 822 , that any termination which does not come within purview of Section 25(oo) amounts to retrenchment, the action of the Petitioner-Company comes within purview of retrenchment and since it is also found that he had worked for 240 days and more than 12 months he was entitled for compensation but it was not paid to the respondent. 25. From the foregoing discussion, it comes out that the respondent was eligible and entitled for payment of retrenchment compensation at the time when his service came to be terminated in April-1996. Undisputedly, such compensation was not paid to the respondent. 25.1 Therefore, learned Labour Court has recorded that the Petitioner-Company violated provision under Section 25(f) of the Act. 25.2 The said conclusion cannot be faulted. 25.3 This takes the Court to the directions passed by learned Labour Court because the action of termination of service of the respondent is found to be illegal and in violation of procedure prescribed by the Act. 26. When the termination is found to be illegal and in violation of principle of natural justice and/or in violation of Section 25(f) of the Act then the termination should be termed as ab-initio void. 26. When the termination is found to be illegal and in violation of principle of natural justice and/or in violation of Section 25(f) of the Act then the termination should be termed as ab-initio void. Consequently the respondent-workman would be entitled for reinstatement on his original post of Surveyor and in absence of evidence about his gainful employment he would be entitled for back wages at appropriate rate, depending on the facts of the case. 27. Mr. Raju, learned advocate for the Petitioner-Company, on the other hand, claimed that the said work is not available with the Petitioner-Company and the Petitioner-Company had retrenched several workman at the relevant time and that therefore, when it is found that the termination is illegal and unsustainable then instead of direction for reinstatement, direction to pay appropriate compensation may be passed. 28. Mr. Raju, learned advocate for the Petitioner-Company submitted that the Petitioner-Company is ready to pay sum of Rs.5 Lacs to the respondent as lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back wages, etc. 29. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the respondent-Workman claims that he may be reinstated and so far as back wages are concerned, the Court may pass appropriate order. 30. Before considering the said submission, it is necessary to note that, according to the respondent-Company, the work for which the respondent was engaged was specialised job Surveying Agricultural Products and that therefore, it is not feasible or practicable for the company to accommodate the respondent at any other establishment of the Petitioner-Company. 31. On the other hand, the respondent-workman has claimed in his deposition that he had made attempts to secure other employment but he could not secure other employment after his service came to be terminated. 32. The Petitioner-Company did not place any evidence before the learned Labour Court and has not produced any material on record of present petition to establish that the petitioner was gainfully employed in the interregnum. 33. Therefore, the Petitioner-Company complied, for some time, the condition/requirement under Section 17(b) of the Act until 2012, and thereafter, the said payment was discontinued on the ground that the respondent was found to be gainfully engaged. 34. In this context, it is relevant to take into account the details mentioned by the respondent in the affidavit dated 7.9.2009 filed in Civil Application No. 8176 of 2009 wherein the respondent stated and asserted that:- "2. 34. In this context, it is relevant to take into account the details mentioned by the respondent in the affidavit dated 7.9.2009 filed in Civil Application No. 8176 of 2009 wherein the respondent stated and asserted that:- "2. At the outset, I say that the applicant Mr. Gadhvi was working as Reported, local evening daily "Ajkal" of District: Jamnagar of Dhanraj News and Media Private Limited. ..... I say that the applicant was getting regular salary from Dhanraj News and Media Private Limited as Reporter of local evening daily "Ajkal". I say that even the applicant has also admitted that till the end of March, 2009 he was working but he did not disclose the source of employment. I say that either the applicant has tendered voluntary resignation and/or his service is being terminated from the post of Reported of "Ajkal". The applicant has not disclosed the true and correct facts in his application and has only stated that from April, 2009 he is unemployed. I say that therefore, there are all chances that he is still continuing with the said organisation and is getting salary and/or monetary benefit by one or the other means. I say that therefore, the application preferred by the applicant is not bona fide. In other words, the applicant is able to get employment and to earn for his livelihood. Therefore, the applicant could not be given the benefit under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. With respect to para-1 of the application, I say that the applicant has not stated and/or disclosed before this Hon'ble Court as to how he has become unemployed since April, 2009, whereas he has admitted that he was working as Press Reported. I say that there are all chances that he might be earning as on today by one or the other means, but he has not disclosed the true and correct facts before this Hon'ble Court by suppressing the true and correct facts." 35. After considering the said affidavit the Court passed order dated 11.9.2009 and disposed of the said Civil Application No. 8176 of 2009. In the said order the Court observed and recorded, inter alia, that:- 1. Rule. Mr. Pandya for Ms. Raju, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of opponent. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith. 2. After considering the said affidavit the Court passed order dated 11.9.2009 and disposed of the said Civil Application No. 8176 of 2009. In the said order the Court observed and recorded, inter alia, that:- 1. Rule. Mr. Pandya for Ms. Raju, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of opponent. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith. 2. The application for last drawn wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is resisted on account of evidence available indicating that the workman was working as Reporter. 3. Shri Mishra, learned advocate for the applicant has controverted this fact and submitted that the workman is unemployed from March, 2009 and therefore, he is entitled to seek last drawn wages by way of provisions of Section 17B of the I.D. Act. Shri Pandya, learned advocate submits that if the Court is inclined to accept this application, then, let there be an assurance from the applicant workman in writing that in case if he is again reemployed, he would not entitle to receive the last drawn wages." 35.1 Thus, in the said proceedings, the Company had claimed that the respondent-workman was gainfully engaged as Reporter with Private News Channel (Television) until March-2009 when the respondent claimed that he was unemployed from March-2009. 35.2 Mr. Raju, learned advocate for the Petitioner-Company relied on the decision in the case of Saurashtra Bank v. P.K. Kamliya to support his submission that instead of confirming the direction to reinstate the workman, appropriate order for reasonable compensation may be passed. He reiterated the submission that the Petitioner- Company is ready to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5 Lacs or such other reasonable compensation which the Court determines having regard to the facts of the case. 35.3 It is relevant to note that the service of the respondent came to be terminated in April-1996. Almost 20 years have passed since the respondent came to be terminated. 35.4 From the deposition recorded by the learned Trial Court, it appears that in 1998, the age of the respondent-workman was 28 years. 35.5 Thus, by now, the respondent workman would be about 46 years old and according to Mr.Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent, he is not employed anywhere since many years whereas according to the company he is gainfully engaged as reporter since March, 2009. 35.6 Mr. 35.5 Thus, by now, the respondent workman would be about 46 years old and according to Mr.Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent, he is not employed anywhere since many years whereas according to the company he is gainfully engaged as reporter since March, 2009. 35.6 Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the respondent also submitted that the salary of the respondent was Rs.1,650/- in April-1996, however now, the salary must have been revised. Without placing any evidence on record he claimed that the salary for the said post is revised and reached to about Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- 35.7 There is no material to support such claim. However, it can be assumed that with passage of time, there must have been revision in salary. 35.8 When the above mentioned aspects and facts about present age of the respondent, about salary which the respondent was drawing at the time when his service was terminated, about the date of the award, total span from the date of his termination till award in the Reference No. 209 of 1996 and the fact that presently any activities are not being undertaken at the establishment where the respondent was engaged and having regard to the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court dated 21.8.2013 in case of U.P. Road Transport Corporation v. C.P. Goswami (Civil Appeal No.6968 of 2013 arising out of SLP (c) No. 22730 of 2013) and the decision in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh [ 2012 (1) SCC 558 ] and the decision in case of Ramchandra Tripathi v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal ( 1994 5 SCC 180 ) and the decision in case of Hari Nandan Prasad v. Employer I/R To Management of FCI [ 2014 (2) SCALE 399 ] holding and declaring that considering the facts and circumstances of the case appropriate and reasonable compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement by modifying award, it appears that in the facts and circumstances of present case, the offer by the petitioner company is just, reasonable and equitable and if the said offer is accepted and if the respondent is paid Rs.5 lacs in lieu of all benefits including reinstatement, flowing from the award then it would be just, proper and reasonable and it would serve interest of justice. 36. 36. Therefore, following order is passed:- (a) The offer by the petitioner company to pay Rs.5 lacs to the respondent workman in lieu of all benefits, including benefit of reinstatement, flowing from the award passed by learned labour Court is found to be just and equitable. (b) In that view of the matter, the award impugned in present petition is modified and it is directed that the petitioner company shall pay Rs.5 lacs as lump sum compensation to the respondent herein in lieu of all benefits arising and flowing from the impugned award dated 11.5.2005 passed by learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No. 209 of 1996 within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this decision. (c) If any delay is caused in making payment then the petitioner will be obliged to pay interest @ 12% over the unpaid amount, for the period of delay. (d) On payment of said amount of Rs. 5 lacs toward lump-sum compensation in lieu of all benefits flowing from the award any right or claim or dispute by the workman against the petitioner company will not survive and the award shall stand complied. With the aforesaid directions the petition is partly allowed. The award dated 11.5.2005 in Reference (LCJ) No. 209 of 1996 is modified to aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In addition to normal mode of service of the order, the respondent is permitted to serve certified copy of this order, directly to the petitioner. According the petition stands disposed of. Orders accordingly. Petition disposed of.