JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The award dated 22.2.2001 passed in I.D. Case No. 38 of 1995 is under challenge whereby and where under, the Labour Court has passed an award holding therein that the termination of the workman is illegal and unjustified and accordingly the order of reinstatement along with 50% back wages has been passed. 2. Fact of the case of the workman is that he was employed under the Management w.e.f. March, 1985 and was working in the Sakhigopal Coir Industrial Complex, Chandbatia. He was appointed by the said Industrial unit after completing one year training from the Institute of Coir training. No formal appointment order was issued to him by the management. He was engaged on daily wage basis and was getting Rs.25/- per day and has worked regularly for more than 8 years under the management for which the workman is coming with the definition of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, although he has completed 240 days of regular service but before refusing to allow the workman w.e.f. 3.5.1993, no reason has been assigned and the procedure as has been laid down by the I.D. Act, 1947 has not been followed, hence the dispute has been raised praying therein for reinstatement in service with compensation. 3. While on the other hand, case of the management is that the workman was engaged by the Project Officer as per the work required. Neither he was recruited by a regular source of recruitment nor the appointing authority appointed him. It is the further case of the management that since the work is not available, hence the workman cannot claimed to remain in service as a matter of right. 4. The workman being aggrieved has raised the dispute which culminated into a reference. The Labour Court has answered the reference in favour of the workman. 5. The Labour Court after appreciating the evidence produced before it as well as the documents available on record has passed the award holding therein the termination of service of the workman is illegal and unjustified and in the result the workman has been held to be entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. The Management being aggrieved with the award is before this Court by way of this writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The Management being aggrieved with the award is before this Court by way of this writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. It has been informed that the management has reinstated the workman in service which has been taken note by the Co-ordinate Bench as would be evident from the order dated 23.4.2002. 7. Learned counsel representing the management has also submitted that he is not challenging the order of reinstatement since the workman has been reinstated in service but however the management aggrieved with the direction of the Labour Court whereby and where under the 50% back wages has been allowed to be paid in favour of the workman. 8. Learned counsel for the management has assailed the award to that effect by submitting that the Labour Court ought not to have passed the direction for 50% back wages since the workman has never worked continuously under the management. It has been submitted that no document has been produced by the workman to that effect, in absence of the documents the Labour Court has come to finding that the workman has been found to be worked continuously for 240 days and thereby the award of making 50% back wages has been passed which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Learned counsel for the workman has submitted that he has already been reinstated in service, meaning thereby the management has not in dispute with respect to the fact he was an employee under the management. It further suggests that the management has accepted the fact regarding continuation of service of 240 days and that is the reason the management has reinstated him in service in compliance to the direction passed by the Labour Court in the award in question. It has been submitted that when the workman has already been reinstated, then submission of the management that he has never worked under the management as such he is not entitled to get 50% back wages which itself contradictory and cannot be relied upon by this Court in this case. 10. It has been submitted that when the workman has already been reinstated, then submission of the management that he has never worked under the management as such he is not entitled to get 50% back wages which itself contradictory and cannot be relied upon by this Court in this case. 10. We, after going through the award and other material available on record, have found that the Labour Court has given conscious finding with respect to Issue No.1, the legality and propriety of the order of termination by the management and the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the workman has completed 240 days of continuous service and thereby found that there is violation of provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. 11. The Labour Court, after coming to the conclusion to that effect, has passed the order of reinstatement along with 50% back wages. There is no dispute about the legal position that in case of violation of 25F of the I.D. Act, the termination will said to be void ab initio, but the order of reinstatement cannot be passed in a routine manner rather the workman is to be compensated by making adequate compensation in this regard. But the management has not chosen to challenge the order of reinstatement rather the direction to that effect has already been complied with by reinstating the workman in service, hence this question is not required to be decided in the instant case. 12. There is no dispute about the fact that once the Labour Court has come to conclusion that there is violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act and if there is a direction for reinstatement in service with 50% back wages, the management has implemented the first part of the order, i.e., reinstatement in service of the workman and in such situation the argument of the management that the workman has not completed 240 days of continuous service cannot be said to be justified one and accordingly we have not accepted the argument for the reason that if the workman has not completed 240 days of continuous service, then why and under what circumstances, first part of the award, i.e., related to reinstatement in service has been given effect to. This action of the management itself suggests that the workman has completed at least 240 days of continuous service and when he has completed 240 days of continuous service, then he is entitled to get back wages and accordingly the Labour Court after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, has passed an award of 50% back wages in favour of the workman. 13. At this juncture, learned counsel for the management has submitted that the financial condition of the management is very miserable, as such a lump-sum amount of compensation be directed to be paid by the management in favour of the workman, to that submission learned counsel for the workman has not made objection. 14. Taking into consideration this submission of the learned counsel for the parties, we thought it proper to direct the management to pay lump-sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the management in favour of the workman within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and accordingly award impugned stand modified to the extent as indicated above. With these observations and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.