ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioners are the Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company (formerly the Karnataka Electricity Board) and seek to question the award in favour of the respondent herein. The respondent was engaged as a lineman on daily wage basis, for the first time in the year 1962. It is the claim of the petitioners that he was engaged on casual basis, whenever there was work available and there were as many as 7 casual workers who were working intermittently between 1972-1977. The 6 casual workers who had been disengaged used to approach the petitioners for casual work and they were being accommodated. The respondent did not seek any casual jobs after 1977. It is only thirteen years later that he had raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. The conciliation having failed, the Government had refused to make reference. 3. The said action was challenged by the respondent before this Court in a writ petition in W.P. No. 12159 and this Court, by its order dated 16-6-1988 had allowed the writ petition and directed the Government to make reference. Accordingly, the matter was referred. The dispute was registered as Ref. No. 5 of 1999 before the Labour Court, Hubli, and parties had appeared and the matter had been adjudicated. The respondent herein had sought reinstatement with all benefits. The Labour Court ultimately passed an award dated 16-2-2001 holding that the respondent was not a workman as defined under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity) and hence, the dispute itself was not maintainable. 4. This was challenged by way of a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 43142 of 2001 which was ultimately allowed as on 25-2-2004. The matter was remitted to the Labour Court after finding that the respondent was a workman and the Labour Court was directed to decide the case on merits. 4. This was challenged by way of a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 43142 of 2001 which was ultimately allowed as on 25-2-2004. The matter was remitted to the Labour Court after finding that the respondent was a workman and the Labour Court was directed to decide the case on merits. The said order was challenged by these petitioners in a writ appeal which was also dismissed and thereafter the matter was adjudicated by the Labour Court and passed an award on 20-11-2006 in the background that the petitioners had not filed any statement of objections refuting the claim of the respondent and the Labour Court ultimately directed the Corporation to pay 50% of the back wages and since the respondent had attained the age of superannuation in the year 2006 and therefore, the question of reinstatement did not arise and it was also held that he would be entitled to continuity of service and other consequential benefits, as if, he was in service from 1977 till the date of the award. It is that, which is sought to be challenged in the present petition. 5. It is pointed out by Sri Kamate, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that even though the petitioners had not contested the matter before the Labour Court, the respondent had not placed any material before the Court to demonstrate that he was a regular employee of the petitioners and he was at best a casual labourer who had discontinued even the casual labour from the year 1977. Therefore, there was no justification in directing the payment of wages, as if, he was in regular service when there was no material placed before the Labour Court and it casts a heavy burden on the petitioners who is again a Government undertaking and ultimately the money would have to come from the corpus of public exchequer and therefore, there is injustice caused and seeks interference. 6. Whereas, the connected writ petition in W.P. No. 78329 of 2013 is field by the respondent herein seeking enhancement of the back wages awarded by the Labour Court from 50% to 75% and implementation of the award. 7. Incidentally, this Court had directed the petitioners in W.P. No. 6958 of 2007 to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- subject to the result of the petition, in favour of the respondent. 7. Incidentally, this Court had directed the petitioners in W.P. No. 6958 of 2007 to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- subject to the result of the petition, in favour of the respondent. The respondent has, in fact, withdrawn such deposit which was made by the petitioners pursuant to the order. 8. Sri Pathan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and the petitioner in W.P. No. 78329 of 2013 would vehemently stand his ground to contend that there is a finding of fact in favour of the workman and since the petitioners-employer had never contested the proceedings before the Labour Court, it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to now dispute the finding when it was for the petitioners to have contested the matter before the appropriate forum. Therefore, the question of setting aside the award would not arise and seeks that full benefit should be given to the workman and in all fairness, since he had never worked for the petitioner-Corporation during the pendency of the proceedings, it would be appropriate, if, he is given a further percentage of the back wages and he is at least entitled to 75% of the back wages instead of 50% with all attendant benefits. 9. In the above circumstances, the petitioner-employer does not dispute that the respondent-workman was engaged by it intermittently. The factum whether he was a permanent employee on regular employment or was casual labourer engaged for over 240 days in a calendar year without a brake, is a disputed question of fact, which the Labour Court has completely held in favour of the workman. This, however, is not evidenced by any material on record except the claim of the workman which has been upheld by the Labour Court and could even be justified when the petitioner-employer has not contested the proceedings. However, the benefit of doubt could be given to the workman, as if, he was a casual labourer who had been engaged for more than 240 days, for otherwise there would not have been an admission by the employer that he was indeed a casual labourer and if he was a regular employee, there would be abundant record to demonstrate the same. 10. 10. Therefore, this Court could proceed on the presumption that he was employed on casual basis for more than 240 days in an year and would certainly be entitled to compensation as prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act. The award of compensation treating him as being in regular service and since the petitioner-employer is a Government undertaking, it is not expected that a person would be in regular service without the records reflecting the same. The only benefit, therefore, that could be given to the workman would be to treat in that view of the matter, as if, he was illegally terminated from service and he would be entitled to compensation as prescribed under the Act. But, the proceedings having dragged on for years without any much benefit to the workman, it would be appropriate, if he is granted a reasonable amount of compensation. He has already received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and in the interest of justice and in the opinion of this Court, if, the petitioner is paid another sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the workman as compensation. Though the compensation calculated in terms of Section 25-F of the Act would be a paltry sum, it is just and necessary in the circumstances of the case in the proceedings having dragged on for decades, that he is compensated in a just sum of money and therefore, the petitioners are directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim of the workman. The same shall be deposited before this Court within a period of six weeks, failing which the said sum shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of default till the date of payment. On such deposit, the respondent-workman is permitted to withdraw the amount. 11. Consequently, the petition filed by the employer in W.P. No. 6958 of 2007 is allowed in part and the writ petition in W.P. No. 78329 of 2013 is disposed of in terms as above.