JUDGMENT : Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 15.02.2007 whereby the claim of the petitioner challenging his termination and seeking reinstatement in service has been rejected. 2. The petitioner/workman is stated to have been appointed on daily wages at the rate of Rs. 40/- per day by the Municipal Board, Puskar on 01.09.1997 for collection of tax at Octroi post. He is stated to have worked continuously till 24.01.2002 whereon his services were terminated by the respondent No.3. The petitioner raised Industrial Dispute which was referred to the Labour Court and the Labour Court vide impugned award has rejected the claim of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Labour Court has erred in law in rejecting the claim on the ground that he was working only on contract and has not furnished any evidence to indicate that he was in the employment of the respondents. He further contends that the petitioner along with ten other workmen had earlier preferred petition before the Competent Authority under the Payment of Wages Act as the salary for the period of 9 months had not been paid. The Competent Authority vide order dated 18.06.2001 had directed the payment of the salary along with compensation which had not been challenged by the respondents. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that as the petitioner/workman had not been able to substantiate his claim of having worked with the respondents through any evidence, the Labour Court had correctly arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner/workman had not worked with the respondents. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. A bare look at the award of the Labour Court indicates that the Labour Court has not dealt in the matter with correct perspective. It has overlooked the factum of the petitioner having earlier approached the Competent Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the payment of his outstanding wages for a period of 9 months. The Competent Authority had directed the payment of wages for 9 months along with compensation of Rs. 10,800/- to be disbursed to the petitioner/workman. This order had not been challenged by the respondents. The Competent Authority had directed the payment of wages for 9 months along with compensation of Rs. 10,800/- to be disbursed to the petitioner/workman. This order had not been challenged by the respondents. The Labour Court has only recorded that this order of the Competent Authority does not help the case of the workman and no reason whatsoever has been advanced by the Labour Court in this regard. The order of the Competent Authority under the Payment of Wages Act which has gone unchallenged is at least an indicator of the fact that the petitioner was under employment of the respondent/management and was being paid the wages by the respondent/management. 7. It is also apt to notice that the order of termination dated 24.01.2002 has been passed by the respondents. In case, the petitioner/workman had been employed only through a contractor, there would have been no occasion for the respondent/management to have passed the order of termination. This factum has been erroneously ignored by the Labour Court. 8. In the wake of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the order of the Labour Court deserves to be set aside. Ordinarily, the case would have been remanded to the Labour Court for afresh adjudication but keeping in view the fact that the petitioner/workman is under litigation for over 14 years, I deem it appropriate to finally decide the matter. The petitioner had worked for over 240 days in a calendar year and hence his termination without issuance of notice was in contravention of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner had only been working on contractual basis and had not been appointed in accordance with the rules or by inviting applications through the employment exchange and therefore I would not direct his reinstatement in service. 9. The petitioner has worked for four and a half years with the respondent/management and was drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 40/- per day. Therefore, I direct the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs. one Lakh to the petitioner, which would be just and adequate. The compensation be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of four months from now failing which the respondents would be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.