JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition is directed against the impugned order and award, dated 31.12.2005, passed in Reference (LCV) No.552 of 1993 whereby, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Baroda directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent-workman to the original post with continuity and with 50% back wages and with cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. Brief facts are as under :- 2.1 The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 was an establishment registered as a shop under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act and was originally run by the partners. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent herein was engaged in the petitioner No.1-establishment as cashier/total/sales person and duty hours were spread over to 4 hours in the morning and 4 hours in the evening. The representative of the petitioner No.1 establishment occasionally used to visit the shop to verify the accounts and to collect the amounts earned during the period of the day from the respondent. According to the petitioners, the salary was fixed and paid to the respondent-workman to the extent of Rs.915/- per month as per the Minimum Wages Act. Surprisingly, despite the fact that petitioner No.1-establishment was giving enough facility, still, however, the respondent-workman was making grievances that accommodation and food facility is not being provided for which the respondent-workman, according to petitioners, has dragged the petitioners in the proceedings. On number of occasions, as per the say of the petitioners, the respondent-workman since was not working properly and several misdeeds were requested to be improved upon, still, however, no improvement had taken place. On the contrary, to militate against the petitioners, a complaint came to be filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vadodara. Though, according to the petitioners, in actual terms misappropriation was done by the respondent to the extent of Rs.3400/-, in turn, the respondent-workman stated that under coercion, signature was taken forcibly on a letter written by one Prashantbhai attached to the petitioners' business. These allegations which are mentioned in the pleadings at Para.3.4 of petition were at the relevant point of time examined by the concerned Court and since the said allegations found to be untrue, incorrect and frivolous the concerned Court disposed of the said complaint by granting bail to the petitioner No.1 establishment. These allegations which are mentioned in the pleadings at Para.3.4 of petition were at the relevant point of time examined by the concerned Court and since the said allegations found to be untrue, incorrect and frivolous the concerned Court disposed of the said complaint by granting bail to the petitioner No.1 establishment. The serious misconduct was done by respondent-workman, however, was taking counter blast attitude against the petitioner No.1-establishment which ultimately led to a situation whereby, on 8.4.1993, the respondent-workman was conveyed to take all legal dues, so that relations may not be continued with the establishment. Though all legal dues permissible in law were willing to be paid to him by the establishment, he has chosen to refuse to accept the said legal dues as also the order and resultantly, the petitioners were constrained to send a letter in the form of order through Regd. Post A.D. as well as simple post along with UPC as well. It is the case of the petitioners as found from the record that since the respondent-workman was not willing to accept the legal dues for discontinuance and was raising unjustified, illegal demand and shown an adamant approach which has led the dispute before the conciliation officer initially and after failure report having been filed by the conciliation officer, an order of reference was made and pursuant to which, the reference was registered as Reference (LCV) No.552 of 1993 before the learned Presiding Officer. The respondent-workman has submitted claim statement at Exh.33, over which the petitioner No.1-establishment has submitted written statement at Exh.10. The specific contentions have been raised which the Court will deal with at a later point of time in the present judgment. To prove the case, respondent-workman has deposed before the learned Presiding Officer and the deposition was recorded at Exh.11 and similarly, the establishment has also recorded their version by examining the witness which is at Exh.19. The petitioner No.1-establishment has produced a list of documents vide Exh.12, whereas the workman has produced the photographs vide Exh.13 indicating that in which business he was associated. The workman has also produced an affidavit at Exh.20 and counter affidavit is submitted by petitioner No.1-establishment at Exh.22. The petitioner No.1-establishment has produced a list of documents vide Exh.12, whereas the workman has produced the photographs vide Exh.13 indicating that in which business he was associated. The workman has also produced an affidavit at Exh.20 and counter affidavit is submitted by petitioner No.1-establishment at Exh.22. After submission of the relevant documents and materials, a closing pursis has been submitted by petitioner No.1-establishment at Exh.25 and upon adjudication of the dispute, the learned Presiding Officer has passed the impugned award dated 31.12.2005 which is assailed in the present petition. A fact is required to be taken note of that during the passage of time, the business of the petitioner No.1- establishment has been crumbled down and the partners have ceased to own and run the said shop and have sold/transferred the said business/shop. This fact was put up before the respondent and was well aware about the fact that business has been closed down and though after discontinuance the respondent appeared to have engaged himself in some earning activity. Without considering the materials which were adduced before the Labour Court, the learned Presiding Officer has passed an order partly allowing the reference by directing the petitioners to reinstate with all attached benefits to the respondent-workman to his original post with back wages of 50% to be paid to him and cost of Rs.1000/- came to be awarded vide impugned award dated 30.12.2005. On the aforesaid premise, by raising various contentions, present petition has been put forth to challenge the said award. 3. Initially, on entertaining the petition vide order dated 11.12.2006, this Court was pleased to issue notice made it returnable on 16.1.2007 and thereafter, vide order dated 31.1.2007 the petition came to be admitted by passing following order : ”Heard the learned advocates. Rule. Mr. Mankad waives service of rule. Pending this petition, there shall be interim stay in terms of paragraph 7 [C] in so far as the award for continuity in service and the backwages are concerned.” 4. A fact requires to be noticed that for vacating interim relief, a civil application came to be filed by respondent-workman which was numbered as Civil Application No.8566 of 2007 in which, while disposing of civil application, the Court has on 27.7.2007 passed following order :- “Learned advocate Mr. A fact requires to be noticed that for vacating interim relief, a civil application came to be filed by respondent-workman which was numbered as Civil Application No.8566 of 2007 in which, while disposing of civil application, the Court has on 27.7.2007 passed following order :- “Learned advocate Mr. R.P. Mankad submitted that amount as prayed in Civil Application has been paid by present opponent original petitioner to the workman concerned, therefore, this application may be disposed of. In view of aforesaid submission made by learned advocate Mr. Mankad, as the amount due in favour of workman has been paid by the employer, the present application is disposed of accordingly.” 5. It further appears from the record that in another Civil Application No.6790 of 2011 filed by the respondent-workman, it appeared that some negotiations had also taken place and on the contrary, the communication attached to the said civil application, an offer was also made under the communication dated 11.4.2011 and on the contrary, the respondent-workman was accommodated in another firm w.e.f. 1.3.2006 in M/s. Rajmjidas Shreenathdas at Raopura, Vadodara which willingly the respondent has resumed and thereafter, was being paid an amount of Rs.42,070/- by a cheque dated 11.4.2011 of Oriental Bank of Commerce. In respect of these affairs stated herienabove, the main petition i.e. SCA No. 25258 of 2006 has come up for final hearing along with civil application stated above and accordingly, the final hearing has taken place. 6. Learned counsel, Mr. D.G. Shukla appearing for the respondent-workman has contended that the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer is not only unjust and arbitrary but, contrary to settled position of law and therefore, same is requested to be quashed. Learned counsel further submitted that the award impugned in the petition is based upon assumption and inferences which are not permissible to be raised and therefore, same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended by Mr. Shukla that looking to the chronology of events, the award of granting reinstatement with 50% back wages in favour of respondent-workman is thoroughly unjustified and even the reasons which are assigned by the learned Presiding Officer are not germane to law. Learned counsel further submitted that there was a serious trouble created by respondent-workman, for which a demean has taken place in the establishment. Learned counsel further submitted that there was a serious trouble created by respondent-workman, for which a demean has taken place in the establishment. However, since the business of the establishment is derailed which has ultimately led to a closer, the learned Presiding Officer having known these facts ought not to have granted reinstatement with back wages. Learned counsel further submitted that there was ample material produced before the learned Presiding Officer that looking to the circumstance granting of reinstatement and back wages would be thoroughly inequitable and qua that, no attention is paid to nor any justification is given. While contending this, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the deposition of Dharmendra Chandrakant Shah, the petitioner's witness who is examined at Exh.19 (establishment witness No.1). Said witness has specifically postulated the derailment of the business of the petitioner. It was also reflecting from that deposition that there was some irregularity by respondent-workman and as such, since the petitioner establishment scolded the respondent-workman on account of misdeeds of financial irregularity, the workman has on the contrary filed the complaint against the petitioner. Learned counsel further drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the workman in his deposition at Exh.11 and in the cross-examination, he has stated that initially he made an attempt to reemploy himself elsewhere but, has not produced any material about the efforts being made to get himself gainfully employed. Learned counsel submitted that though there appears to be concrete materials on record, the learned Presiding Officer has not examined the same from its proper perspective. On the contrary, after discontinuance from the service in the year 1993 i.e. prior to almost 24 years, it is revealed from Para.17 of the award in question that he was doing earning activity of selling vegetables and therefore, while determining an amount of 50% back wages, no proper yardstick is adopted by the learned Presiding Officer and therefore, there appears to be no justification or even logical reason assigned to grant reinstatement and 50% back wages. Learned counsel further drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made on oath that the shop in question is already closed which was known as “Kalyan Nasta Gruh' situated at Sayajiganj, Vadodara and by referring to this specific averment contained in Para.3.15 of the petition, learned counsel submitted that since the business is closed down, it is impossible and inequitable to sustain the order of reinstatement and back wages. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of the Court to the order dated 31.1.2007 in which this Court has admitted the petition and granted interim relief in terms of Para.7(C) in so far as the award relates to continuity in service and the back wages are concerned and therefore, since the reinstatement was not stayed, as the respondent workman was accommodated by showing an inclination to allow him to join M/s. Rajmjidas Shreenathdas, it was contended that even the prayer was not sought of staying the reinstatement. Learned counsel also submitted that unfortunately, the business which was going on in which the respondent workman was absorbed in service during pendency of the petition has also no longer survived and the said business firm named above is closed and by referring to some of the averments contained in Civil Application No.6790 of 2011, learned counsel submitted that respondent workman has accepted the amount payable in that regard which is reflected on Page-14 of civil application which communication dated 11.4.2011 and therefore, learned counsel submitted that the respondent had voluntarily accepted the proposal of petitioner way back in the year 2006 to be absorbed in another firm named above where he willingly worked for a period of almost 5 years upto 11.4.2011 and therefore, having accepted this tenure of service, it is ill-founded for respondent to press the award in question. The most material fact is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amount which is referred to above of Rs.42,070/- is accepted and this closure of business has not been agitated. Under the circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that reinstatement is not possible and to grant the award, the amount of back wages to the extent of 50% would be highly inequitable and rather, would be severely damaged the petitioner as the business is already crumbled down and closed. Under the circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that reinstatement is not possible and to grant the award, the amount of back wages to the extent of 50% would be highly inequitable and rather, would be severely damaged the petitioner as the business is already crumbled down and closed. It was further contended that since the employees were less than 10 in number at the relevant point of time in the original establishment i.e. in the present petitioner, the applicability of provisions of the Gratuity Act was no longer in question and therefore, the same was not amenable to the respondent. However, whatever permissible was paid and therefore, since the business is closed down and for a period of almost 5 years, the respondent workman has accepted the alternate employment, the question of continuing the impugned award in operation is not justiciable. Learned counsel further submitted alternatively that in any case the workman was no longer in service right from 1993 and by now, 24 years have passed and therefore, at this stage to survive life of the impugned award in its effect would be nothing but travesty of justice. Learned counsel therefore submitted that by striking balance between both the sides, alternate request of petitioner be considered by moulding the relief, award a reasonable amount of compensation to him. While contending this alternative prayer, learned counsel has tried to rely upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Abad Dairy Vs. Manjibhai Dhanjibhai, reported in 2000 (3) GLH 409 and contended that alternative relief be granted in lieu of the award of reinstatement with 50% back wages and by referring to this judgment, learned counsel has requested to at least mould the relief and substitute that relief qua that of the reinstatement and 50% back wages. Manjibhai Dhanjibhai, reported in 2000 (3) GLH 409 and contended that alternative relief be granted in lieu of the award of reinstatement with 50% back wages and by referring to this judgment, learned counsel has requested to at least mould the relief and substitute that relief qua that of the reinstatement and 50% back wages. Of course, at first point of time, learned counsel has pressed the relief of the main petition but then, at the fag-end of the submission has alternatively contended to mould the relief and award at the best a reasonable amount of compensation and for that purpose, learned counsel has shown readiness to pay whatever amount the Court suggests or which was deliberated to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- at the most and therefore, by contending this, learned counsel representing the petitioner has requested the Court to allow the petition by granting appropriate relief in the interest of justice. This alternative prayer the learned counsel has submitted that it is because of the fact that by now over a period of time, respondent workman must have reached the age of superannuation and therefore, since the reinstatement is not possible on account of two major factors (i) closure of business and (ii) age of superannuation, he requested the Court to mould the relief and grant appropriate relief as prayed for. 8. To oppose the petition, learned counsel, Mr. R.P. Mankad appearing for the respondent-workman has vehemently submitted that well reasoned award passed by the learned Presiding Officer is not required to be disturbed in any manner and that too, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. By referring to some of the documents contained in the petition, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court that what was the actual claim of the respondent and what was answered to him with the said claim by the respondent workman and for that purpose, even the evidence of workman was also referred to by learned counsel and then, requested the Court not to substitute or alter the finding arrived at by the learned Presiding Officer. Learned counsel further submitted that ultimately it is borne out from the entire evidence that there is a clear violation of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act and such finding is referred to in Para.15 and 16 of the impugned award and since the said finding is arrived at after looking at the statutory provision, learned counsel submitted not to interfere with and dismiss the petition. So far as back wages is concerned, learned counsel submitted that there are justifiable reasons assigned to substantiate the finding with regard to back wages and therefore, it is not desirable in the interest of justice to disturb the award which has been passed. Learned counsel further drawn the attention of the Court that the award is justified in view of the fact that there was no departmental inquiry; there was no conduct established of any nature which is canvassed by the petitioner that of respondent workman and therefore, since violation of Section 25(F) of the Act, such finding may not be disturbed in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction more particularly Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submitted that subsequent employment in the firm named above is of no consequence as having not appearing on the real issue. Learned counsel also pointed out that petitioner establishment was under a legal obligation to comply with requirement of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act and therefore, learned counsel submitted not to entertain the petition. Learned counsel further submitted that so called closure of the business story which has been put up by the petitioner is not substantiated by any material. On the contrary, business was developed and after accommodating in the employment with another concern as a part of device, learned counsel submitted that petitioner has dealt with unfairly with the respondent workman and therefore, requested the Court not to allow such device being adopted by the petitioner. For the purpose of submitting that the impugned award is just and proper as also equitable and for substantiating this, learned counsel relied upon following decisions which this Court will deal with at a later point of time; (I) Prem Narain Vs. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Juhi & Anr., reported in 2016 II CLR 386 and Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D ED) and Ors., reported in 2013 (11) Scale 268 wherein, the Apex Court has propounded the effect of illegal termination. Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Juhi & Anr., reported in 2016 II CLR 386 and Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D ED) and Ors., reported in 2013 (11) Scale 268 wherein, the Apex Court has propounded the effect of illegal termination. In another decision in case of Ranbir Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Mohak Bhadara, reported in 2012 (3) LLN 487 (P&H) (D.B.) wherein also, 50% back wages has been awarded and therefore, it is not correct to say, as per the say of the respondent, that any illegality is committed by the Labour Court. While referring to some of the observations made in the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, Kanpur Nagar, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 345 , learned counsel submitted that scope of writ jurisdiction is very limited and therefore, looking to the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution, no interference be made with the impugned award and by referring to these materials, learned counsel submitted to dismiss the petition. 9. In rejoinder to this, learned counsel, Mr. D.G. Shukla for the petitioner submitted that respondent was actually reinstated on 1.3.2006 and as such there was no circumstance with the petitioner to get interim relief qua reinstatement order was concerned, to which learned counsel Mr. Mankad has invited attention of this Court to the relevant observation contained in Para.4 of the civil application in which it has been stated that he was asked to resume the duty only on 9.2.2007. However, be that as it may, the fact was ultimately not in dispute that the respondent for a period of approximately 5 years has worked with the aforesaid firm named as M/s. Rajmjidas Shreenathdas. Mr. Shukla further stated that even to some extent the labour court has also observed that issue of gainful employment has not been established by respondent workman as there is a categorical finding in the award whereby, it is recorded that prima facie it is not believable that respondent workman was all throughout remained unemployed and therefore, Mr. Shukla submitted that there is no justification worth the name in respect of awarding reinstatement and back wages. 10. Shukla submitted that there is no justification worth the name in respect of awarding reinstatement and back wages. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials available on the record and having considered the decisions cited by learned counsel for the parties, following facts are emerging from the record which worth to be considered. (i) The fact of original business in the name of Kalyan Nasta Gruh has been closed down. It is also reflecting from the record that during the passage of time, the business has been closed down and the respondent workman was granted an employment in another firm named as M/s. Rajmjidas Shreenathdas. (ii) It is further revealing from the record that there is some grievances consistent with the respondent workman about the irregularity for which there was a loss of confidence which is reflecting from the award of the learned Presiding Officer from internal page-6. (iii) It is also revealing from the record that the petitioner establishment was ready and willing to pay the amount to respondent workman but, it is the respondent workman who did not accept and went away w.e.f. 8.4.1993. (iv) From the record, it further appears that respondent workman was granted an employment in M/s. Rajmjidas Shreenathdas on 1.3.2006 and he continued himself for a period of almost 5 years upto April,2011 without any protest and then, accepted the amount of Rs.42,070/- by way of cheque dated 11.4.2011. Of course, later on it appears that the grievance is tried to be voiced by way of Exh.19 in which, a request was made to vacate the interim relief granted vide order dated 31.1.2007. It is further appearing from the record that there is a categorical finding arrived at by the Presiding Officer, who, based upon the record, arrived at a conclusion that it is not believable that throughout the respondent was unemployed and had not produced any sufficient material to indicate that he has made any attempt to get himself employed elsewhere gainfully and therefore, this finding is not assailed by respondent workman as the petition is filed by the establishment and not by the respondent workman. (v) It is further undisputed that by now almost around 24 years have passed on from the discontinuance in April,1993 and the petitioner establishment though closed down is faced with an award of the Labour Court of reinstatement with 50% back wages. (vi) It is also undisputed from the record that some negotiations have also taken place in the meantime to resolve the entire dispute and it is further undisputed that by now the respondent workman has already attained the age of superannuation. 10. In view of the aforesaid position which is revealing from the record, the question before the Court is, whether in such a situation, is it equitable to grant a relief of reinstatement and 50% back wages by sustaining the impugned award ? Now to answer this question which has been erupted in the proceeding, if the material is examined in the context of this situation, it has appeared to the Court that the claim statement which was submitted by the respondent workman has narrated the circumstances under which the respondent workman was led to a situation to discontinue from the employment and if the version of claim statement is to be examined from the context of the facts narrated in the reply filed by the establishment at Exh.10, it appears that the case of the petitioner establishment was related to some of the irregularities committed by the respondent workman and it further appears that there is a loss of confidence generated between the petitioner and the respondent workman. Now in the context of this situation, if we go through the deposition of establishment witnesses such as deposition of one Mr. Dharmendra Shah, who is examined at Exh.19 has stated that the respondent workman was not coming to give the accounts and it is also deposed before the Court that originally 4 employees were working with the petitioner establishment but, at the relevant point of time only 2 persons were working and about alleged irregularity, he has referred to the record from the establishment. However, in the cross-examination, it is stated that the respondent workman was discontinued from the service w.e.f. 8.4.1993 and by now almost a period of 24 years have passed. However, in the cross-examination, it is stated that the respondent workman was discontinued from the service w.e.f. 8.4.1993 and by now almost a period of 24 years have passed. Now further if we examine the deposition of workman i.e. Arvind A. Patil at Exh.11, he has stated that on account of the dispute related to Rs.3400/-, since he has filed the police complaint the petitioner establishment wanted a resignation, which he has given and resultantly, an order of discontinuance orally came to be passed on 8.4.1993. This witness in Para.8 has not produced any material about his efforts to get a gainful employment. But he has admitted that he was dealing with the activity of selling vegetables. From the record of the petition, it is further appearing that ultimately the petitioner establishment has been closed down and the respondent workman was given an employment in M/s. Rajmjidas Shreenathdas where he served for a period of almost 5 years and got Rs.42,070/-. Considering the overall circumstances, it would appear that the business in which the respondent workman was employed, is no longer surviving and is not running in any manner. Therefore, it appears from the record that attempts were made by the learned counsel to resolve the dispute during the pendency of proceedings and therefore, from overall view of the matter, it appears that the petitioner establishment is faced with an impugned award of reinstatement with 50% back wages in a situation where not only the business is closed down but, there is no financial position available of that business and therefore, in such a situation it appears that the relief of reinstatement with back wages deserves to be moulded in view of some of the recent pronouncements. In this context, now to deal with the decision cited by the respective sides, the Court has firstly considered the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner which is delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Abad Dairy (Supra) wherein, the Division Bench, while dealing with almost similar situation, has considered the situation and observed that the Court has to consider the relevant circumstance which might ultimately justify the denial of relief. In the facts of the aforesaid case, the Abad Dairy was a sick unit was in financial crunch and almost on the verge of closure and in the context of that situation, the Division Bench has considered the decision of the Supreme Court and held like this. Relevant extract of the said decision which is contained in Para.30 and 31, same are reproduced hereinafter :- “30. Considering the claim of regularisation or reinstatement and backwages to the workmen, the financial condition of the Industry and its requirement for the jobs or posts cannot be overlooked. As a matter of fact, these are very relevant circumstances and might justify denial in a given case. In the instant case, admittedly Abad Dairy is now a sick unit. Due to competitive market in Gujarat its business has gone down so much that it is under tremendous financial strain. There are few job opportunities available with it. As has been pointed out in the reply affidavit the sale of milk in the year 1994-95 was 3 lacs litres per day which at the time of filing reply in the petition in the month of February 1995 had gone down to hardly 45000 litres per day. The statement on affidavit reads: "With the sale of milk taking nose-dive as aforesaid, it was no longer possible for the respondent Dairy to provide work to even its permanent workmen. Since large number of permanent workmen were surplus in the Dairy there is a burden of idle wages. The employer had to introduce voluntary retirement schemes resulting in 671 workmen availing the benefit of retirement. The adverse market conditions has financially crippled the dairy. It showed accumulated losses at the end of financial year 31st March, 1994 to the tune of Rs.27,75,03,767/-. As a result it was declared sick unit by the Board of Industrial and Financial Construction by order passed on 26.10.1994." Without going into the legal question whether the provisions of Section 22(3) of the Sick Industrial Undertakings Act would bare any such proceedings at the instance of the workmen for regularisation and back wages, we are clearly of the opinion that it would be highly unjust to grant workmen the relief of regularisation and back wages as prayed by them which the sick unit is unable to provide. 31. 31. In rejecting the claim of the workmen, we are supported by the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma Vs. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Another reported in 1981 SC 422. The relevant portion reads as under:- "6. ........ But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable to grant reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is vestige of discretion left in the Court to make appropriate consequential orders. The Court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The Court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. ..... " 11. It appears to this Court that present situation is also, on the contrary, worst than this that here in the case on hand, not only there was a financial crunch but, there is a closure of the business itself and therefore, the relief of reinstatement and back wages is highly inequitable in the background of present situation. To arrive at this conclusion, the Court has an aid to some of the other pronouncements of the Supreme Court to come to the conclusions which are referred to and relevant extract would be reproduced hereinafter. Just recent decision delivered by the Supreme Court in case of General Secretary, Coal Washeries Workers Union, Dhanbad Vs. Employers in relation to the Management of Dugda Washery of M/s. BCCL., reported in AIR 2016 SC 4441 , while dealing with such a situation, the Supreme Court has considered an issue as to what is the relief to be couched in a situation like this and the relevant extract of the said decision based upon earlier decision of the Supreme Court is reproduced hereinafter :- “3. …. …. The Division Bench, therefore, modified the award in the following terms:- “We considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and we are of the view that even the Labour court was of the view that these workmen are not entitled to full back wages in view of the fact that they did not work and the back wages were also awarded w.e.f. 1st July 1990. The workmen worked from 1986-1990 for which they got their salary/wages and this fact is not in dispute. Thereafter the workmen are getting the benefit of the payment of wages in view of Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of the award dated 19th July 2007. In view of the above fact that these workmen are not working since 1990, we do not find it equitable to maintain the order to reinstate the employees after 20 years. So far as the compensation in lieu of the reinstatement is concerned, we deem it proper to award Rs.50,000/-(fifty thousand) to each of the workmen in addition to whatever amount has been paid to these workmen under Section 17(b) of the said Act by the appellant. With this modification, this LPA is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.” 5. Considering the arguments of both sides, in our opinion, the Division Bench was right in observing that, in the facts of the present case, an order of reinstatement must be eschewed, being inequitable. The workmen, however, must be compensated in lieu of reinstatement. Applying the principle underlying the decisions of this Court in Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. P.P. Chopra[1] and the recent case of Delhi International Airport (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India[2], in our considered opinion, interest of justice would be met by enhancing the amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement/absorption and regularisation quantified at Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) to each workmen. For, the workmen have already received wages from October 2004 to January 2012 in terms of the order under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 without any work assigned to them. The respondent paid minimum wages to the concerned workmen during the relevant period as the workmen were not able to produce any document in support of their last drawn wages. 6. The respondent paid minimum wages to the concerned workmen during the relevant period as the workmen were not able to produce any document in support of their last drawn wages. 6. This lump sum compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to each workmen would be in full and final settlement of all the claims of the concerned workmen and substitute the order passed by the Tribunal to that extent, without any further enquiry as to whether the concerned workmen was gainfully employed during the relevant period or not.” 12. In yet another recent pronouncement, similar such view has been taken that if ultimately the award of reinstatement and back wages is either not possible to be effectively implemented or it is found to be inequitable on account of passage of time from the date of its discontinuance then, it is always open to the Court to mould the relief and suitable amount of compensation can be awarded to a workman in lieu of the reinstatement and back wages. In a further decision, the Apex Court in case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation and Another Vs. Gitam Singh, reported in 2013(5) SCC 136 wherein, upon examination of the record, the reinstatement with continuity in service and 25% back wages award came to be converted into a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. After considering several decisions in the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that the judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court in granting award of reinstatement found to be erroneous and a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- came to be awarded, the relevant paragraph of this direction is reproduced hereinafter. ““28. We may also refer to a recent decision of this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Man Singh [24]. That was a case where the workmen, who were daily wagers during the year 1984-85, were terminated without following Section 25-F. The industrial dispute was raised after five years and although the Labour Court had awarded reinstatement of the workmen which was not interfered by the High Court, this Court set aside the award of reinstatement and ordered payment of compensation. In paragraphs 4 and 5 (pg.559) of the Report this Court held as under:- “4. In paragraphs 4 and 5 (pg.559) of the Report this Court held as under:- “4. This Court in a catena of decisions has clearly laid down that although an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee. 5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondent workmen were engaged as “daily wagers” and they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice.” 29. In light of the above legal position and having regard to the facts of the present case, namely, the workman was engaged as daily wager on 1-3-1991 and he worked hardly for eight months from 1-3-1991 to 31-10-1991, in our view, the Labour Court failed to exercise its judicial discretion appropriately. The judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court suffers from serious infirmity. The Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High court also erred in not considering the above aspect at all. The award dated 28-6-2001 directing reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and 25% back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be sustained and has to be set aside and is set aside. In our view, compensation of Rs.50,000 by the appellant to the respondent shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made to the respondent within six weeks from today failing which the same will carry interest @9% per annum.” 13. In another decision of the Apex Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. Vs. Kailash Narayan Sharma, reported in (2014) 16 SCC 440 also, similar proposition is reiterated. Relevant observations are as under :- “9. In last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature maybe appropriate. (See U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479 ; Uttaranchal Forest Development Corpn. v. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353 ; State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma, (2007) 1 SCC 575; M.P. Admn. v. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748 ; Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, (2008) 5 SCC 75 ; Jaipur Development Authority v. Ramsahai, (2006) 11 SCC 684 ; GDA v. Ashok Kumar, (2008) 4 SCC 261 and Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula, (2008) 1 SCC 575 ). x x x 11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would sub serve the ends of justice. In our considered view, the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the workmen (respondent nos. 1 to 14) shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum." 14. In another decision in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 773 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with a case of daily wager having been retrenched while applying Section 25F of the Act has held that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages not automatic even if termination of the employee is found to be illegal or in contravention of the procedure. In that case also, a situation was erupted that after almost a period of more than 25 years, a situation had arisen to reinstate the workman with back wages who has hardly worked for 2-3 years and therefore in such a situation when even if there was violation of Section 25F, a monetary compensation came to be awarded. The relevant paragraphs are as under:- “7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant then submitted that vide order dated 10-2-1987, the services of the workmen were not terminated but they were redeployed in the office of AE (Cables) CTX, Bhopal; the workmen, however, did not join their duty there and they abandoned their service. The relevant paragraphs are as under:- “7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant then submitted that vide order dated 10-2-1987, the services of the workmen were not terminated but they were redeployed in the office of AE (Cables) CTX, Bhopal; the workmen, however, did not join their duty there and they abandoned their service. The Tribunal referred to the cross-examination of the appellant's witness Shri A.K. Saxena in this regard and did not find any merit in this submission. The High Court found no justification to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal. We have no justifiable reason to take a different view on facts found by the Tribunal. 9. In the last few years it has been consistently held by this Court that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic even if termination of an employee is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the prescribed procedure and that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate. 10. In a recent judgment authored by one of us (R.M. Lodha, J) in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board, the aforesaid decisions were noticed and it was stated:- “7. It is true that the earlier view of this Court articulated in many decisions reflected the legal position that if the termination of an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift in the legal position and in a long line of cases, this Court has consistently taken the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given fact situation even though the termination of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice. * * * * * * * * * * 14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. * * * * * * * * * * 14. It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decisions in recent time, this Court has clearly laid down that an order of retrenchment passed in violation of Section 25-F although may be set aside but an award of reinstatement should not, however, be automatically passed. The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a case where the workman has completed 240; (2008) 4 SCC 261 ; (2008) 1 SCC 575 ; (2009) 15 SCC 327 , 6 days of work in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be proper by this Court and instead compensation has been awarded. This Court has distinguished between a daily wager who does not hold a post and a permanent employee". 11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2 or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot be said to be justified and instead monetary compensation would sub-serve the ends of justice. In our considered view, the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each of the workmen (respondent nos. 1 to 14) shall meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. Such payment shall be made within 6 weeks from today failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.” 15. In recent decision delivered by the Apex Court in case of Raj Kumar Vs. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, reported in (2016) 7 SCC 582 in which also the Apex Court was of the view that in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, the relief can be moulded. Para.2 of the said decision since relevant is quoted hereinafter: “2. Having regard to the period of work starting from 1984 though intermittently upto the year 1993, we are of the view that the interest of justice should be advanced in case the compensation is slightly enhanced and fixed at Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, it is ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and there shall be no further claim with respect to the appellant's engagement with the respondent. We make it clear that this is in addition to whatever has already been paid to the appellant. Therefore, it is ordered that the appellant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and there shall be no further claim with respect to the appellant's engagement with the respondent. We make it clear that this is in addition to whatever has already been paid to the appellant. The amount shall be paid within six weeks from today.” 16. In another decision in the case of Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 486 , the Supreme Court has held as under : “15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the respondent was employed for a short period and that too in two different spells, viz., from 1987 to 1990 and from 1995 to 1997. Having regard to the fact that the respondent has not worked for a long period and the appellant does not have any capacity to pay as it is a sick unit, interest of justice would be subserved if in stead and place of an award of reinstatement with full back wages, a compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) is directed to be paid. The said sum would be over and above the amount which the appellant has deposited in terms of the order of the High Court under Section17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.” 17. In another decision in the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Arjunlal Rajak, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 711 , the Supreme Court has held as under : “8. It is also trite that even for grant of back wages, application of mind on the part of the Industrial Court is imperative, as a relief of full back wages may not be granted automatically. In U.P. State Brassware Corpon. Ltd. & anr. Vs. Uday Narain Pandey [ (2006) 1 SCC 479 ] this Court opined: "22. No precise formula can be laid down as to under what circumstances payment of entire back wages should be allowed. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It would, however, not be correct to contend that it is automatic. It should not be granted mechanically only because on technical grounds or otherwise an order of termination is found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act." 9. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It would, however, not be correct to contend that it is automatic. It should not be granted mechanically only because on technical grounds or otherwise an order of termination is found to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act." 9. It was further held that while a decision to close down the establishment has been taken, ordinarily, back wages to a limited extent should be granted. 10. The onus to prove that he had completed 240 days of work or he had not been gainfully employed within the said period was on the workman. 11. Keeping in view the fact that the services of the respondent were terminated on the ground that the production unit in which he was working itself had been closed, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if a monetary compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is granted to him. It, however, goes without saying that he would be entitled to the wages for the period he had actually worked pursuant to or in furtherance of the order of the Labour Court and as also of the High Court upon his reinstatement. The award of the Labour Court as also the judgment of the High Court are set aside.” 18. In light of the aforesaid situation, if we see the background of facts of present case on hand then, it reflects from the record that the date of discontinuance is 8.4.1993 i.e. much before approximately 24 years from the day on which the Court is dealing with the present petition. In light of the aforesaid situation, if we see the background of facts of present case on hand then, it reflects from the record that the date of discontinuance is 8.4.1993 i.e. much before approximately 24 years from the day on which the Court is dealing with the present petition. In addition thereto, the date of the award is also dated 30.12.2005 i.e. award passed after almost a period of 12 years from the date of discontinuance and that 2005 award has come up for final adjudication in the year 2016 and therefore, for this much period of time, the Court feels that it is highly inequitable to effect the order of reinstatement and back wages more particularly when the earlier establishment is closed down and later on, the workman was absorbed in another establishment where also he was discharged from the service by paying an amount of Rs.42,000/- and odd which is accepted and for which fact, learned counsel for the respondent-workman is not disputing and therefore, considering totality of these circumstances prevailing on record, it is almost impossible and highly inequitable to effect and implement the order of reinstatement and back wages to the extent of 50% and therefore, the aforementioned proposition of law of the legal pronouncement has weighed with the Court to mould the relief in the present proceedings as well. 19. However, before giving such effect to the relief contained in the petition, the Court has to examine the decisions cited by learned counsel for the respondent-workman as well. First decision which has been cited is in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D ED) and Ors., reported in 2013 (11) Scale 268 wherein, by referring to this decision learned counsel for the respondent has requested that once there is a finding arrived at by the learned Presiding Officer and the award to reinstate with 50% back wages is passed, the Court has to give effect to such award. But while examining this contention in the light of the case cited by the learned counsel, if we see the facts of that case wherein the management had issued notice for holding an inquiry under Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules and the inquiry committee had conducted ex-parte proceedings and thereafter, the management terminated the service. But while examining this contention in the light of the case cited by the learned counsel, if we see the facts of that case wherein the management had issued notice for holding an inquiry under Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules and the inquiry committee had conducted ex-parte proceedings and thereafter, the management terminated the service. It was allegation of the appellant in that case that the inquiry committee has not allowed to participate in the inquiry proceedings and therefore, main contention which was pleaded in that case was that concerned employee of that case was not granted an opportunity of proper representation which has violated principles of interest of justice and the inquiry was conducted against the relevant rules and therefore, in the set of that circumstance, the Supreme Court has examined the issue and has passed an order. It was also examined by the Supreme Court in that case the report of Education Officer (Primary) in respect of proposal of appointment as well. It was also taken note of the attitude of the concerned head master in the institute and the issue was altogether different from this present fact situation and therefore, as a straitjacket formula, the case cited by learned counsel is not to be applied. It is an established proposition that while applying the ratio laid down by a judgment, one has to examined the fact situation of the case in which background a proposition of law was laid down. It is settled position of law that if the facts are distinct then there is a world of difference in applying the principle laid down by a decision and therefore, here the Court finds that the fact situation is altogether different from that of the case which has been cited by learned counsel referred to above and therefore, considering this position prevailing on record of this case, without disputing the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court is of the humble opinion that the said ratio is not applicable in a straight manner. 20. Another decision which has been cited by learned counsel for the respondent-workman is in case of Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, Kanpur Nagar, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 345 wherein also, the Supreme Court was dealing with a different set of circumstance. 20. Another decision which has been cited by learned counsel for the respondent-workman is in case of Raj Kumar Dixit Vs. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, Kanpur Nagar, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 345 wherein also, the Supreme Court was dealing with a different set of circumstance. While considering the provisions of Section 6(N) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Supreme Court was examining the effect of the reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages. Now if we see the background of that fact wherein, the appellant had fallen sick had approached the management for his outstanding salary and instead of paying that, straightway terminated the services and in that context, the labour court was pleased to reinstate the workman with 50% back wages. However, the High Court was pleased to modify the award by granting compensation of Rs.2 lacs in lieu of the award which had been passed. Again if we further examine the facts of that case, the concerned workman was in-charge of maintenance of all the 7 tankers which was held by the establishment and in addition thereto, the transport office was also being looked after by the workman. The main thrust of the contention in that case was that juniors were still continued in the employment and the workman was discontinued and the firm in which the workman was working wherein, only the transport business of the firm was closed down and other businesses were continued and the workman was working in the capacity as account clerk. The firm in that case had a work of transporting caustic soda from the said factory was completely stopped and therefore, all the tankers were sold off and all licenses of the tankers were surrendered to the respective authority. However, the firm was continuing its business in trading betel nut and therefore, it was not a case that altogether a new establishment has emerged after closure of transport section and therefore, if the background of fact of that case is to be seen, there appeared to be circumstance wherein, one section came to be closed and the others were continued and therefore, in the light of such kind of situation, the Supreme Court was examining the issue with regard to a fact whether the High Court was justified in awarding compensation in lieu of award of reinstatement and back wages. Now if we further examine the situation which was prevailing in that case wherein, the establishment's plea was not supported by any pleading or any evidence and in that background the award came to be passed and at the High Court level, an attempt was made by producing the additional evidence and therefore, in light of those circumstances, the Supreme Court was taking up an issue whether it was justified by the High Court to substitute or mould the relief in lieu of award. The Court is sure about the fact that these facts are also quite distinct from the facts which are prevailing on record of the present case. Much discussion is not needed at this stage about the distinguishable features of fact as on earlier occasion in this judgment, the narration has taken place. 21. Yet in another decision which has been cited by learned counsel for the respondent in case of Prem Narain Vs. Swadesi Cotton Mills, Juhi & Anr., reported in 2016 (2) CLR 386 wherein also, the facts appeared to be different. In that case the termination of service had taken place on 31.10.1991 and the award came to be passed wherein, the appellant of that case had already attained the age of superannuation on 1.7.1997 and in that context, 50% back wages was awarded. Said order is a brief order wherein, detailed discussion on the issue of validity of termination was not examined as age of superannuation had reached and therefore, no much reliance is possible by this Court upon the said decision and therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the same is not possible to be applied in a straitjacket formula. 22. Another decision which is tried to be pressed into service of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Ranbir Singh (Supra) wherein also, there was absence of pleading on the part of employer to prove the issue related to gainful employment and in that context, the Punjab & Haryana High Court had passed an order. But, here in the present case on hand, if we re-examine at this stage the deposition of the workman as well as overall materials on record based upon which it appears that the award is not sustainable and therefore, in the background of present fact situation, the ratio laid down by the said decision is not no avail to the respondent-workman. 23. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent workman also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Gauri Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2015 (0) AIJELSC 56437 in which also, the Court is not disputing the proposition of law at all. But at the same time if we examine the factual matrix of that case then, it would quite clear that background of facts is distinguishable. The Court is not making any attempt to distinguish the proposition just to arrive at a decision, however, if properly the facts are examined of those cases, the same are reflecting a different fact situation. In the case of Gauri Shanker (Supra), the Supreme Court has dealt with an establishment which is a forest department, Chattargarh, District Bikaner of State of Rajasthan and the establishment i.e. the department is still continuing, whereas here it is quite different that the establishment itself is closed and therefore, there is no possibility of giving effect to the award of reinstatement and back wages. Yet in another decision which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-workman in case of Raj Kumar Dixit (Supra), in that case also it appears that mandatory provision of Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act was under consideration before the Court. In that particular case, the contention was that the reinstatement was not justified since the firm has closed its business and there was a dispute that M/s. Modi Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. has closed down the work of transporting caustic soda from the factory, was closed completely and therefore, the tankers were sold off. But it was not a case that main company has been closed down and there in that case, it was not believed that workman was not in the employment of the respondent firm. The arrangement which was made with respect to allocating work is reflected in Para.15 of the said judgment and therefore, the theory of no master-servant relationship exists, is not believed and therefore, the Court found that workman was not only working as merely a mechanic in establishment but, was also as accounts clerk and therefore, the main company was already subsisting, whereas one section was completely closed down as it appears and therefore, in that peculiar background of facts, the Supreme Court has dealt with an issue and found that relief could not have been moulded. The Court is not disputing in any manner the said proposition rather, is respectfully agreeing with the said proposition in the background of that fact. But if we examine the facts of the present case, the Court finds that the background again is of a different nature. Here, in the present case, the workman was discontinued way back in April, 1993. Thereafter, he was again absorbed in another firm where also his services were no longer continued and the workman had accepted the amount of Rs.42,000/- and odd and therefore, the fact of closure of two firms were never in controversy, rather is undisputed and therefore, the background of present facts on hand is quite distinct which would not permit the Court to apply straightaway the proposition which has been canvassed by learned counsel for the respondent-workman and therefore, considering overall set of circumstance, the Court is of the considered opinion that the relief of reinstatement and back wages is not warranting, is highly inequitable and therefore, deserves to be moulded in view of the proposition of law which has been brought to the notice of the Court by learned counsel for the petitioner. This is rather a fit case in which the relief requires to be moulded in the light of the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court. 24. Therefore, considering this background of fact, it appears that in what manner and in what quantum the relief to be moulded. The Court is initially in the present proceedings itself was persuaded that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay any reasonable term of compensation. Even the record indicates that some negotiations had also taken place and there was a gap which could not be bridged by both the learned counsel for the respective parties and therefore, in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the negotiations have failed, presumably in the context of quantum of the amount of compensation, path is taken by the learned counsel for the respondent to contest the proceedings, so much so that a statement of receivable amount has also been exchanged between the learned counsel and therefore, said aspect is also not to be ignored. Therefore, considering this set of circumstance this Court is of the opinion that if a reasonable sum of Rs.3,50,000/- is to be awarded, interest of justice will be met. Therefore, considering this set of circumstance this Court is of the opinion that if a reasonable sum of Rs.3,50,000/- is to be awarded, interest of justice will be met. This figure of Rs.3,50,000/- is after considering offer of petitioner and after considering calculation furnished by respondent's consent in which some figures are not justified to be granted. Therefore, lump sum figure would sufficiently take care of interest of the respondent as well after this much passage of time. 25. Further, considering the fact that the relief which has been granted in the award is not possible to be inequitably and effectively implemented and therefore, the Court is conscious about all these ground reality and therefore, has come to the conclusion that this would be in the interest of justice to grant an amount of compensation as referred to above in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 26. Accordingly, the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCV) No.552 of 1993 is modified and instead of reinstatement and back wages as ordered, the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/- is ordered to be paid to the respondent-workman in lieu of the original award. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6790 of 2011 In view of the order passed in main SCA No.25258 of 2006, this civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.