JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Rule. Mr. Buch, learned advocate for respondent nagarpalika has waived the service and with consent of learned advocate for the respondent nagarpalika, the petition is heard finally today. 2. This petition is listed at Sr. No. 1 in the Today's Cause List. When the matter is called out, Ms. Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. On her behalf, Mr. Pratik Bhatt, learned advocate is present. This Court enquired with Mr. Pratik Bhatt, learned advocate for Ms. Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner as to whether he would conduct the matter on merits on behalf of Ms. Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner or not. In reply, learned advocate Mr. Pratik Bhatt, colleague of Ms. Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner declined to make submissions on merits on the ground that he is not in position to conduct the matter on merits. 3. This petition is pending since 2013 on admission stage and it is already adjourned 48 times. In this view of the matter, this Court considered it appropriate to proceed to decide the matter after considering the material on record. 4. Almost 3 years after the learned Labour Court at Junagadh passed the award dated 6.2.2010 in Reference (LCJ) No. 169 of 1997, the workman concerned in the said reference has placed the said award under challenge in this petition. By the said award dated 6.2.2010 in Reference (LCJ) No. 169 of 1997, the learned Labour Court, after holding that the concerned workman's termination was effected in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, directed the respondent nagarpalika to pay Rs. 35,000/- towards lump sum compensation. 5. It is declared and stated by learned advocate for the respondent nagarpalika that immediately after the award was rendered, the respondent nagarpalika had paid the said amount of Rs. 35,000/- towards lump sum compensation to the petitioner workman. He submitted that the amount was paid in April 2010. 6. The petitioner workman did not take any action against the award for almost 3 years and now after passage of 3 years (and after having received the amount awarded - as declared and stated by the respondent - by the learned Labour Court and when the award is implemented) the petitioner workman woke up from his slumber and initiated proceedings against the award by way of present petition. 7. 7. So far as factual background leading to submission of present petition is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the petitioner workman raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred for adjudication by appropriate government vide order of reference dated 30.6.1997. The said reference came to be registered as Reference (LCJ) No. 169 of 1997. 8. During the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner workman filed her statement of claim and alleged that she was working with the respondent nagarpalika since May 1990 at Sr. No. 450/- per month and that her service was illegally and arbitrarily terminated with effect from 28.2.1997 without any fault of her and without following procedure prescribed by law. She alleged that when her service was terminated, the respondent nagarpalika had not paid retrenchment compensation. She also alleged that her service was not terminated for any misconduct and any enquiry was not conducted against her. She also alleged that her service was terminated in violation of principles of natural justice as well as by violating statutory provisions. She alleged that her juniors are continued in her service whereas, her service was terminated. 9. The respondent nagarpalika opposed the reference and denied the allegations by the petitioner workman by filing its written statement. In the written statement, the respondent nagarpalika claimed that (a) the petitioner was not engaged after following the selection and recruitment procedure prescribed by applicable rules; (b) the petitioner workman was engaged on casual, temporary and ad hoc basis; (c) the petitioner workman was engaged on daily wage basis for miscellaneous work; (d) there was no sanctioned post and/or clear vacancy on any sanctioned post when the petitioner workman was engaged; (e) any appointment letter was also not issued to the petitioner workman; and (f) the respondent nagarpalika had not terminated her service, however, it was the petitioner who on her own volition stopped reporting for duty and abandoned the service. On such submissions and assertions, the respondent nagarpalika opposed the reference. It was also claimed by the respondent nagarpalika that the petitioner's entry was back-door entry and there was no justification in her claim for reinstatement with consequential benefits. 10. It appears that after the pleadings were completed, deposition of the petitioner workman was recorded at Exh. 11, however, in the respondent nagarpalika failed to participate the proceeding before the learned Labour Court after filing written statement. 10. It appears that after the pleadings were completed, deposition of the petitioner workman was recorded at Exh. 11, however, in the respondent nagarpalika failed to participate the proceeding before the learned Labour Court after filing written statement. 10.1 Since the respondent nagarpalika did not lead any evidence for considerable time against the deposition by the claimant workman, the learned Labour Court closed the stage of evidence on the part of the respondent nagarpalika and subsequently proceeded to pass an award dated 24.4.2003 in absence of respondent nagarpalika. 10.2 Thereafter, the respondent nagarpalika filed miscellaneous application under Rule 36A and prayed that since the said award was passed in absence of the respondent nagarpalika, it may be recalled and opportunity of contesting reference on merits may be granted. 10.3 By order dated 2.9.2004, the learned Labour Court granted the said application on condition that the respondent nagarpalika shall pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost. The respondent nagarpalika paid the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost and reference was restored. 10.4 However, even after the said procedure, in second evenings also the respondent nagarpalika failed to attend the proceedings and therefore, the learned Labour Court passed award dated 18.12.2006. 10.5 Thereafter, the miscellaneous application seeking restoration of the proceedings, i.e. Misc. Application No. 1 of 2007 came to be rejected by the learned Labour Court. 10.6 Feeling aggrieved by the said order the respondent nagarpalika carried the order passed in miscellaneous application before this Court. A writ petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 30970 of 2009 was filed. 11. After hearing the parties, this Court remanded the reference to the learned Labour Court for fresh decision, on the condition that the respondent nagarpalika shall pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner workman. 12. It appears that the respondent nagarpalika paid the said amount to the petitioner workman and that, therefore, the reference was restored and was heard on merits. 12.1 The respondent nagarpalika examined the Chief Officer Mr. R.D. Vaghela as its witness. The respondent nagarpalika also examined one Mr. V.R. Dudhaniya as its witness whose deposition was recorded at Exh. 41. 12.2 Thereafter, the learned Labour Court heard the submissions by the contesting parties. 13. 12.1 The respondent nagarpalika examined the Chief Officer Mr. R.D. Vaghela as its witness. The respondent nagarpalika also examined one Mr. V.R. Dudhaniya as its witness whose deposition was recorded at Exh. 41. 12.2 Thereafter, the learned Labour Court heard the submissions by the contesting parties. 13. After considering the material on record and the rival submissions, the learned Labour Court reached to the finding that (a) the petitioner workman had worked with the respondent nagarpalika from May 1990 to February 1997; (b) in view of the fact that the respondent nagarpalika placed on record the Attendance Register and Pay Register only for part of total tenure for which the petitioner workman was engaged (i.e. instead of producing Attendance Register and Pay Register for the period from May 1990 to February 1997, the nagarpalika placed on record documents for the period of 1996 and 1997), the learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to draw inference, on the ground that the Attendance Register/Pay Register in respect of total tenure was not placed on record before the learned Court though the record is in possession of the nagarpalika, that the petitioner workman had worked for not less than 240 days in preceding 12 months; (c) having drawn the said inference, the learned Labour Court recorded the conclusion that the petitioner had established that the conditions required for attracting and applying provisions under Section 25F were fulfilled by her; (d) the learned Labour Court rejected the respondent nagarpalika's claim that it had not terminated the service of the petitioner but it was the petitioner who on her own volition stopped reporting and abandoned from duty in service; (e) the learned Labour Court recorded the conclusion that it was the respondent nagarpalika who terminated the service of the petitioner with effect from 28.2.1997 and there was no material on record to even assume that the workman had abandoned the service on her own volition; (f) the learned Labour Court also reached to the conclusion that though the petitioner had worked for almost 7 years and that she had worked continuously for the said period and during preceding 12 months, she had worked for more than 240 days, the respondent nagarpalika had failed to comply the conditions and requirement prescribed under Section 25F, i.e. to pay retrenchment compensation before terminating the service of the petitioner workman. 14. 14. Having reached to and having recorded above-mentioned findings of fact, the learned Labour Court also found that the termination of the petitioner's service was in contravention of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that, therefore, as a corollary, the petitioner was entitled for relief of reinstatement. The learned Labour Court also found that the petitioner would be, ordinarily, entitled for backwages. 15. The said findings of fact and the conclusions have not been challenged by the respondent nagarpalika. 15.1 Actually, the respondent nagarpalika has accepted and implemented the award. 15.2 In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to examine the legality and propriety of the said conclusions by the learned Labour Court. 16. Having found that the termination of petitioner's service is illegal and that, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement, the learned Labour Court addressed the issue with regard to petitioner's claim for backwages. 16.1 Having considered the said aspect, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the case on hand was a case where direction to pay backwages and reinstatement should not be granted mechanically and other relevant factors should be taken into account. 17. In this view of the matter, the learned Labour Court took into consideration the fact that the petitioner's entry in the respondent nagarpalika was back-door entry. She was not regularly selected and appointed after following the prescribed procedure for selection and recruitment. The learned Labour Court also took into account the fact that neither when she was engaged nor at the relevant time when her service was terminated, there was any sanctioned post and any vacancy on sanctioned post. 17.1 Having considered the said aspects, the learned Labour Court found that instead of directing the respondent nagarpalika to reinstate the petitioner workman and to pay backwages, it would be appropriate to mould the relief and that if direction to pay lump sum compensation is granted, then it would serve interest of justice. The learned Labour Court being of the said view, took into account the salary of the petitioner and total period for which she was illegally and irregularly engaged and quantified the amount of lump sum of Rs. 35,000/-. 18. Consequently, the award granting lump sum compensation of Rs. 35,000/- came to be passed on 6.2.2010. 19. The learned Labour Court being of the said view, took into account the salary of the petitioner and total period for which she was illegally and irregularly engaged and quantified the amount of lump sum of Rs. 35,000/-. 18. Consequently, the award granting lump sum compensation of Rs. 35,000/- came to be passed on 6.2.2010. 19. The respondent nagarpalika implemented the award and complied the direction by paying compensation amount, i.e. Rs. 35,000/- in April 2010. 20. The petitioner workman accepted the said amount and for almost 3 years, she did not take any action against the award. 20.1 Now after expiry of about 3 years and after the award came to be passed, the petitioner has suddenly waken up from slumber and initiated present petition. 21. The challenge in present petition is against the decision to grant lump sum payment. The petitioner workman seeks reinstatement. 22. So as to oppose the relief prayed for in the petition, learned advocate for respondent nagarpalika relied on the decision in the case of Assistant Engineers, Rajasthan Development Corporation v. Gitam Singh [ (2013) 5 SCC 136 ] where the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief may be moulded even in cases where the services of the employees are terminated and instead of mechanically granting direction for reinstatement and/or backwages, the relief by way of lump sum compensation can be granted. 23. When the award passed by the learned Labour Court, more particularly the decision to grant lump sum compensation instead of opposing direction to reinstate the petitioner and pay backwages, is examined in light of the facts of present case, more particularly the fact that the petitioner's engagement right from first stage, i.e. in May 1990 was irregular and illegal inasmuch as she was engaged without there being any sanctioned post and on any vacancy on sanctioned post and without following prescribed procedure for selection and recruitment and without following names from employment exchange and without issuing any appointment order and that she was engaged on daily wage basis, the decision of the learned Labour Court cannot be faulted. 24. It is relevant and appropriate to mention at this stage that while considering the grievance of the petitioner, the respondent nagarpalika was asked to provide details/quantification of the amount which would, in normal circumstances, be payable towards retiral dues like gratuity etc. 24. It is relevant and appropriate to mention at this stage that while considering the grievance of the petitioner, the respondent nagarpalika was asked to provide details/quantification of the amount which would, in normal circumstances, be payable towards retiral dues like gratuity etc. on termination of service of regularly selected permanent employee with similar length of service. In response to the said instructions, the respondent nagarpalika informed the Court that in case of regularly selected employee whose service may come to an end after similar length of service, amount payable towards retiral dues would come to Rs. 69,667/- which would be payable towards gratuity. 25. Thereafter, the Court enquired from learned respondent nagarpalika as to whether the nagarpalika would be willing to take the said amount of Rs. 69,667/- to the petitioner in addition to the amount of Rs. 35,000/- already paid by it towards lump sum compensation in compliance of the direction passed by the learned Labour Court vide award dated 6.2.2010. 26. In reply, the Court was informed by the nagarpalika that it would pay the said amount to the petitioner. 27. Subsequently, on 6.11.2015, the respondent nagarpalika informed the Court that in addition to the amount paid to the petitioner towards lump sum compensation in compliance of the award, the nagarpalika has already paid sum of Rs. 69,667/- towards gratuity to the petitioner. 28. In this background, when the total amount received by the petitioner workman after she instituted reference proceedings against the respondent nagarpalika is taken into account, then it emerges that the petitioner workman has received sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- (Rs. 35,000 + Rs. 69,667) towards lump sum compensation and gratuity. Besides the said amount, the respondent nagarpalika also paid sum (i.e. Rs. 5,000 + Rs. 50,000) towards cost, which was directed to be paid as condition for restoration of reference proceedings. 29. When the above-mentioned aspects are taken into account, this Court does not find any reason or justification to interfere with the award impugned in present petition. The petitioner has failed to make out any case against the decision of the learned Labour Court to award lump sum payment instead of granting relief of reinstatement and backwages. 29. When the above-mentioned aspects are taken into account, this Court does not find any reason or justification to interfere with the award impugned in present petition. The petitioner has failed to make out any case against the decision of the learned Labour Court to award lump sum payment instead of granting relief of reinstatement and backwages. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Labour Court is justified in its decision to award lump sum compensation instead of granting reinstatement, more particularly in view of the fact that initial engagement of the petitioner and her subsequent continuation in service was in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, but it was by way of back-door entry. The learned Labour Court has not committed any error in making the impugned award. 30. In light of the above discussion and for the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly rejected. Rule is discharged.