JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is against the award dated 30.7.2007 passed in Industrial Dispute Case No.10 of 2005 whereby and where under the management has been directed to adjust the petitioner in his farm with his engagement as a daily and casual labourer since 1.8.2007. 2. Brief facts of the case of the management, State of Orissa is that due to closure of the sales centre it was not feasible on their part to engage in any establishment and the farm is operating on seasonal posts, seeds centre are operating in the harvesting season, so sufficient opportunity was not given to the retrenched workman for further engagement. The workman already disengaged may not be possible to be reengaged in any centre already closed. The management assured the Court to somehow to give engagement to the workman in the farm at least for a period of 240 working days in a year with some adjournment. Case of the opposite party-workman is that he was engaged as a Weighman-cum-Watcher from 1994 to 2002 on a salary of Rs.50/- per day but he was terminated from service without assigning any reason or serving any notice in compliance to the mandatory provision as contained under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman after being retrenched from service has raised a dispute and conciliation having been failed the appropriate Government has made a Reference before the Labour Court for its adjudication and accordingly the award has been passed which is under challenged in this writ petition. 3. The State Government being the management has challenged the award on the ground that since the opposite party-workman has filed proceeding under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Labour Court has entered the claim of the workman for back wages, the petitioner thought it proper to challenge the award by way of writ petition since the workman has not stick to its own stand regarding claim of reinstatement and on agreement between the parties, order of reinstatement has been passed. However, the Labour Court was not inclined to reinstate the workman in service and in lieu of reinstatement in service, the court was optioned to award a lumpsum compensation. 4. However, the Labour Court was not inclined to reinstate the workman in service and in lieu of reinstatement in service, the court was optioned to award a lumpsum compensation. 4. Opposite Party-workman has appeared and submitted that although award has been passed but same has not been implemented in its letter and spirit and work is not being provided. Learned counsel for the workman has submitted that this Court has passed order dated 26.7.2016 directing the State Government to allow the opposite party-workman to join his duty as a casual labourer with due accommodation or before 5.8.2016, opposite party-workman although has been allowed to join but the work is not being provided and due accommodation has not been provided to him, hence it is very difficult to discharge duty at the place he has been now deputed. This has been vehemently opposite by the State by submitting that the workman has been allowed to work as casual labour in the Departmental Agriculture Farm, Sarangad as would be evident from the order dated 1.8.2016 but the workman has not performed his duty as would be evident from the communication dated 6.8.2016, hence submission of the learned counsel representing the workman is that the award passed by the Labour Court has not been implemented in its letter and spirit, hence direction has been sought for from this Court to enforce the award. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of rival submissions it is evident that a dispute has been raised by the workman to the effect: “Whether the termination of services of Sri Chaitanya Sahani, Weighman-cum-Watcher with effect from 5.9.2002 by the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Phulbani is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief Sri Sahani is entitled?” Labour Court has proceeded to answer the Reference and on appreciation of the evidence produced before it, the Labour Court has came to the finding that the opposite party-workman has been engaged for a period of 240 days and as such he will be said to have discharged continous service but before retrenchment the provision as constrained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since has not been followed, hence retrenchment has been said to be illegal. Labour Court has given finding on the basis of the non-rebuttal evidence having been made by the management with respect to the averments of the workman and the document placed by him in support of his contention. Labour Court after coming to conclusion that there is violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but taking into consideration the fact that the order of reinstatement can only be passed in exceptional cases and in the normal rule retrenchment compensation is to be given in case of violation of provision of section 25-F, hence initially inclined to pass award for payment of lump sum compensation but the workman has refused to accept the amount of compensation and in course of the proceeding the management has agreed to adjust him by giving employment without prejudice to his interest and accordingly on the basis of consensus arrived in between the parties, the following order has been passed. “The reference is answered and award is passed with direction to the management to get the petitioner adjusted in his farm with his engagement as a daily and casual labourer since 1.8.2007 and to see that the right of the workman in no way to right.” 6. We have examined the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and there is no dispute about the fact that in case a workman is found to have discharged 240 days of continuous service as per the provision of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before retrenchment the provision of section 25-F has to be complied with and if provision of Section 25-F is not complied with the order of retrenchment will be said to be void ab initio. We have also examined authoritative pronouncement with respect to non-compliance of the provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as per the authoritative pronouncement it is settled that the order of reinstatement can only be passed in exceptional circumstances and the normal rule is to compensate the workman by way of making payment of lump sum compensation in case of violation of provision of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. 7. In the award which is under challenge in this writ petition the Labour Court has found that the opposite party-workman has completed 240 days of continuous service but before retrenchment provision of Section 25-F has not been followed, hence order of termination has been found to be illegal and unjustified. Labour Court while granting relief to the workman has thought it proper to compensate him by making payment of lump sum compensation but on refusal by the workman, management has agreed to offer job in his favour as daily rated capacity and on the basis of the consensus arrived at the award has been passed by directing the management to reinstate the workman in the daily rated capacity as casual labourer since 1.8.2007. The State of Orissa thereafter has filed this writ petition challenging the award on the plea that although the award has been passed with consent of the parties but the workman in an illegal manner has filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming wages and as such this writ petition has been filed challenging the award, save and except, that no other ground has been taken for assailing the award. 8. This Court has taken care of issuing direction upon the management to provide job to the workman with due accommodation and the State of Orissa being the management has issued engagement order in his favour as would be evident from the order dated 1.8.2016 but it seems that the petitioner has not reported on duty as would be evident from the communication dated 6.8.20016. from perusal of these orders, it is evident that the workman has been provided with job as per direction passed by the Labour Court as per the award which is impugned in this writ petition, however the opposite party workman has not reported on duty and disputed by the opposite party workman, hence we are not entering into this controversial issue. 9. So far as the award is concerned, since the Labour Court has passed award taking into consideration of violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the order of reinstatement has been passed which has been acted upon, hence decline to interfere with the same. 10. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.