JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present petition, the petitioner electricity company has placed under challenge award dated 9.8.2007 passed by the learned Labour Court in Reference (LCJ) No. 156 of 2000 whereby the learned Labour Court partly allowed the reference and directed the petitioner electricity company to reinstate present respondent on his own original post with 15% backwages to be calculated and paid from 11.10.1999. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged form the record that the respondent herein raised industrial dispute on the allegation that his service was illegally terminated in 1986 without following procedure prescribed by law and without granting opportunity of hearing and therefore, he should be reinstated with all consequential benefit. The claimant raised the said dispute in 2000 i.e. after inordinate delay of 14 years. 3.1 Disregarding the said inordinate delay, the appropriate Government passed order of reference and referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court. 3.2 Before the learned Labour Court, the claimant (i.e. the respondent herein) filed statement of claim with the allegation that he worked with the opponent for 4 years, i.e. from 1982 to 1986 as temporary helper and that he worked regularly and continuously from 26.4.1982 to 31.8.1984 and thereafter he worked with the respondent from May 1985 to 1986 and his service came to be terminated by the opponent without following any procedure in 1986 and accordingly, he worked with the opponent for 4 years and his service came to be terminated illegally. With such allegation, the claimant demanded reinstatement with full backwages and other benefits. 3.3 The opponent opposed the reference on various grounds, including the ground that the reference is not maintainable and should not be entertained in view of the inordinate delay. It was also claimed that the claimant was not engaged continuously and/or regularly and he was not an employee of the electricity company. The electricity company contended that the claimant was engaged on ad hoc and on casual basis for temporary period on 20.4.1982 and that his said engagement was purely on temporary and on ad hoc basis only for 4 months. The electricity company contended that the claimant was engaged on ad hoc and on casual basis for temporary period on 20.4.1982 and that his said engagement was purely on temporary and on ad hoc basis only for 4 months. The electricity company also claimed that subsequently in November 1982 the claimant was again engaged as work charge helper for 2 months and upon completion of the period, his service came to an end. According to the company, subsequently in April 1983 the claimant was again engaged as temporary helper for 2 months with the specific condition in the order that his service would come to an end on completion of the period mentioned in the order. According to the company, the claimant was subsequently again engaged in October 1985 vide order dated 11.10.1985 and he was continued till February 1986. According to the company the claimant had not worked regularly and/or continuously with the electricity company and he never worked continuously for 240 days in any year, more particularly in preceding 12 months. 3.4 After completion of pleading the contesting parties placed oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Upon completion of stage of evidence, the learned Labour Court heard rival submissions and thereafter passed impugned award. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award and the direction, the electricity company has taken out present petition. 5. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner company vehemently assailed the award and contended that the very fact that the claimant raised dispute after inordinate delay of 14 years itself goes to show that the claimant raised dispute only as an afterthought and with a view to extracting money from the petitioner company. He further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute was raised after inordinate delay of 14 years, the appropriate Government ought not have made reference and in any case the learned Labour Court should not have entertained the reference and ought to have rejected the same on the ground of inordinate delay. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, the learned Labour Court failed to consider this vital aspect and passed the impugned award without application of mind to such pertinent fact. 5.1 Mr. According to learned advocate for the petitioner, the learned Labour Court failed to consider this vital aspect and passed the impugned award without application of mind to such pertinent fact. 5.1 Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner further referred to the details recorded by the learned Labour Court in the award (at internal pages 97 and 98 of award and running pages 112 and 113 of the petition) and he submitted that even at a glance the said details would establish that the claimant never worked regularly and continuously and in any particular phase (when he was engaged) the claimant had not worked continuously for 240 days. However, the learned Labour Court unjustifiably and arbitrarily clubbed the working days in different phases (e.g. from April 1982 to August 1982 and from November 1982 to January 1983 and from June 1983 to August 1983) and by such unjustified and arbitrary manner, the learned Labour Court reached to legally unsustainable conclusion that the claimant had worked more than 240 days and the Court passed the impugned award which the award deserves to be set aside. 6. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the opponent supported the award and submitted that the award does not suffer from any error. He submitted that the claimant had worked for 4 years with the company and his service was terminated without following prescribed procedure and that, therefore, the award may not be disturbed. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the claimant, however, could not offer legally sustainable explanation with reference to delay of 14 years in raising the dispute. 7. I have considered rival submissions and material available on record as well as the impugned award. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has assailed the award on the ground that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the claimant could not offer any explanation with regard to inordinate delay for 14 years in raising dispute and that the claimant failed to make out sufficient cause with regard to inordinate delay and in such circumstances, the dispute should not have been entertained. 8.1 On this count, it is relevant to mention that even at the time of hearing of this petition, learned advocate for the petitioner could not offer any explanation worth the name and the claimant failed to offer any explanation with reference to the delay of 14 years in raising the dispute. 8.1 On this count, it is relevant to mention that even at the time of hearing of this petition, learned advocate for the petitioner could not offer any explanation worth the name and the claimant failed to offer any explanation with reference to the delay of 14 years in raising the dispute. The said fact is sufficient to establish that the dispute when it was raised, was stale dispute and was raised as an afterthought. The said delay of 14 years could not have been lightly or casually ignored and/or such inordinate delay could not have been casually condoned without proper request and in absence of satisfactory explanation. Though, the Act does not prescribe limitation, but that does not give licence to claimants to be negligent and/or indolent and wake up any time and raise - as afterthought - stale and dead claim without offering explanation for long delay. 9. From the order dated 1.9.2014 passed by this Court in light of one of the orders passed by this Court during the hearing of the petition (i.e. from the order dated 1.9.2014) it comes out that at that stage also the petitioner had assailed the award in light of the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. v. Gitam Singh [ (2013) 5 SCC 136 ]. 10. From the discussion in the award, it comes out that the learned Labour Court has not recorded satisfactory and legally sustainable reasons for ignoring inordinate delay of 14 years and/or for impliedly condoning inordinate delay of 14 years in absence of any explanation with regard to cause for delay and in absence of any request to condone delay. The learned Labour Court could not have acted suo motu and in absence of any explanation with regard to cause for delay, the Court could not have condoned or ignored the delay. The learned Labour Court ought to have recorded sufficient and cogent reasons for condoning inordinate delay of 14 years. Unfortunately, proper and sufficient reasons to justify the decision of learned Labour Court are not found from the award. 11. The learned Labour Court ought to have recorded sufficient and cogent reasons for condoning inordinate delay of 14 years. Unfortunately, proper and sufficient reasons to justify the decision of learned Labour Court are not found from the award. 11. Besides this, from the details recorded by the learned Labour Court in the award (more particularly at internal pages 97 and 98 of the award, i.e. running pages 112 and 113 of the petition) it comes out that even the learned Labour Court has noticed that the claimant was engaged intermittently during different phases from 1982 to 1985. Thus, there was no justification to club different phases/periods with substantial hiatus so as to reach to the conclusion that the claimant had worked for more than 240 days. 12. The requirement, according to the provision under Section 25F of the Act, is that the concerned workman ought to have worked continuously for 240 days during preceding 12 months, i.e. 12 months preceding the date of alleged termination. 13. From the discussion in the award and material available on record, such aspects do not emerge. 14. At this stage, it is appropriate to mention that learned advocate for the respondent/claimant submitted that at the time when this Court passed the order dated 1.9.2014, the learned advocate for the petitioner had mentioned that in view of the observations by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gitam Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered appropriate to award lump sum compensation in case where such dispute was raised after about 10 years the petitioner may pay some amount as lump sum compensation to the respondent/claimant. 15. On strength of such statement allegedly made by learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate for the respondent/claimant submitted that if the petitioner pays reasonable lump sum compensation to the claimant, then the claimant would be satisfied. 16. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner fairly submitted that the reference of the decision in the case of Gitam Singh (supra) and reference of compensation was an alternative submission that if the objection on merits against the award are not accepted by the Court, then the Court may consider the alternative of awarding compensation instead of passing direction to reinstate the claimant and/or granting backwages. He further submitted that in the cited decision the concerned person had raised dispute after about 10 years and in the said case Hon'ble Apex Court directed payment of Rs. 50,000/- as lump sum compensation as against the learned Labour Court's direction awarding 25% backwages and reinstatement. He submitted that in present case the claimant raised dispute after inordinate delay of 14 years and the learned Labour Court has awarded only 15% backwages from October 1999 to August 2007. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate also submitted that the claimant has already crossed age of superannuation and that, therefore, the question of reinstatement does not survive. In this background, Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner suggested that Rs. 35,000/- would be reasonable amount. 17. In this context, it is relevant to mention that in present case, the claimant raised dispute after 14 years, the learned Labour Court has awarded backwages at 15% from 1999 to 2007 and the claimant has already attained age of superannuation. 18. Besides the said fact, the important fact in present case is that the claimant had worked intermittently from 1982 to 1985/1986. Differently put, total tenure of the petitioner's engagement, that too intermittently, is only of 3-4 years. Lump sum compensation, therefore, is required to be considered in light of above mentioned directions. 19. Under the circumstances, in view of this Court, the amount suggested and offered by learned advocate for the petitioner is reasonable. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent also submitted that the claimant would be satisfied if he is paid said amount as lump sum compensation. 20. In this view of the matter, present petition is partly allowed. The impugned award is set aside and modified and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the company is directed to pay Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) as lump sum compensation in lieu of the award and all claims of the respondent. Upon payment of such amount, any claim or right of the petitioner shall not survive. 21. The petitioner company shall take steps to pay the said amount to the claimant by A/c Payee Cheque as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. With the aforesaid directions and clarifications, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.