JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner company. Learned advocate for the respondent or the respondent is not present. Though served, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. From the record it has emerged that even at the stage when the petition was not admitted and it was pending at notice stage, no one had entered appearance for the respondent. Even after the Court admitted the petition vide order dated 4.7.2013 until now appearance on behalf of the respondent is not entered. Though process of Rule is served, the respondent has chosen to abstain from present proceeding. In this background and after considering the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner company, the Court passed below quoted order on 4.7.2013: "1. Heard Mr. Subhash G. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner. Though notice is served, none appears on behalf of the contesting respondent No:1. 2. It is indicated that, by the impugned award of the Labour Court, Palanpur dated 29.09.2012, respondent-workman was ordered to be paid compensation to the extent of Rs. 75,000/- which is under challenge. It is contended that the petitioner-employer is already willing to offer him employment and the same was reflected in the order of this Court dated 26.02.2013. It is further contended that though more than once, respondent was called to join duty, he has not reported. 3. Rule. During pendency of this petition, the impugned award dated 29.09.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Palanpur, of granting lump sum compensation to respondent No. 1, shall remain stayed." 2. In present petition, the petitioner company has challenged award dated 29.9.2012 passed by the learned Labour Court at Palanpur in Reference (LCP) No. 108 of 2005 whereby the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner company to pay Rs. 75,000/- as lump sum compensation to the respondent. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said award and direction, the petitioner company has taken out present petition. 4. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the respondent herein, i.e. original claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent employer, i.e. petitioner company illegally terminated service in August 1999. On such allegation, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 4. So far as the factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the respondent herein, i.e. original claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent employer, i.e. petitioner company illegally terminated service in August 1999. On such allegation, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Since the conciliation process failed, appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Labour Court at Palanpur. The dispute/reference was registered as Reference (LCP) No. 108 of 2005. 5. In his statement of claim, the claimant alleged that he was employed by the company in 1995 and that since then, he worked regularly and continuously with the company till August 1999 when the company illegally and arbitrarily terminated service and without any procedure prescribed by law. He also alleged that while he was in service, he was paid salary of Rs. 3,000/-. He also alleged that without granting opportunity of hearing and without following any procedure, the company terminated his service and his salary for last 4 months is due but not paid. With such allegation, he demanded that the company may be directed to reinstate him with consequential benefits. 6. The company opposed the reference and resisted the demand. In its reply, the company denied the allegations by the claimant including the allegation that he was appointed since 1995 and/or that his salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month and that for last 4 months, his salary remained unpaid. The company also denied the allegation that his service was illegally terminated. The company contended that service of the claimant is not terminated by the company and that actually, when GIIC attached the properties of the company including the factory and the mines, the company was not in position to offer work to its employees and that, therefore, all those employees who were ready and willing to accept gratuity and other dues, were paid the amounts towards gratuity and other dues, however, the company had not terminated service of the claimant and actually, it was the claimant who stopped reporting for duty when he was transferred from mines to the factory and that, therefore, the claimant's allegation as well as demand are unjustified. With such submission, the company claimed that the reference may be rejected. 7. During his submission, Mr. With such submission, the company claimed that the reference may be rejected. 7. During his submission, Mr. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner company reiterated the facts and details mentioned in the written statement. He further submitted that the allegation by the claimant that his salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month, is incorrect and the said fact is evident from the documents which were placed on record before the learned Labour Court by the claimant himself. Learned advocate for the petitioner company referred the documents on record of present petition at pages 39 to 47 and submitted that the claimant's salary was around Rs. 1,800/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month. He further submitted that the claimant was transferred from mines to the factory, however, he did not want to work at factory and therefore, he voluntarily stopped reporting for work and the company had not terminated his service. Learned advocate for the petitioner company also reiterated that on account of the company's failure, due to weak financial position, to repay the loan availed from GIIC, the said financial institution had attached the properties of the company including the factory and the mines and that, therefore, the company was not able to offer the work to its employees. During the period when the attachment by GIIC continued. He submitted that during the said period several employees opted to leave the employment and accepted payment of gratuity and other dues including provident fund. He submitted that since the claimant was not reporting for duty, the said amount could not be paid to him and the claimant did not come forward with demand for gratuity and other dues. Mr. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner company also referred to the deposition of the claimant and emphasized that even during his cross-examination, the claimant accepted and admitted that he was transferred from mines to factory and that he was not comfortable in performing duties at factory and therefore he stopped reporting for work. He also emphasized that the claimant accepted that until August 1999 he had worked at the mines and then he was transferred to factory where he was not comfortable. He also emphasized that the claimant accepted that until August 1999 he had worked at the mines and then he was transferred to factory where he was not comfortable. He submitted that the learned Labour Court ignored the said admission by the claimant and the learned Labour Court also lost sight of the pay slips which were placed on record by the claimant and the said document reflected that the claimant's salary was not Rs. 3,000/- per month as claimed by him. Mr. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner company submitted that even if the Court is of the view that the award does not warrant any interference so far as the direction to pay lump sum compensation is concerned, then also the amount quantified by the learned Labour Court for lump sum compensation deserves to be reduced because the learned Labour Court has quantified the amount of compensation by taking into account the claimant's salary at Rs. 3,000/- per month. 8. I have considered the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioner company. 9. As mentioned above, on behalf of the respondent, no one has entered appearance. The respondent himself has also not appeared and has not contested the petition. 10. It is appropriate to note that the claimant did not appear in present proceeding before this Court at the stage when the petition was pending at notice stage. Thereafter, the respondent did not appear at the time when the Court passed order dated 4.7.2013 and admitted the petition. Even after service of process of Rule, no one entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and the respondent himself has also preferred to abstain from proceeding. Further, during pendency of the petition since 2013, the claimant has not come forward with demand for payment of lump sum compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court. In view of the submission by learned advocate for the petitioner, this Court, in the order dated 4.7.2013, recorded that the petitioner employer had invited the claimant to resume duties, however, the claimant did not report for duty despite intimations by the company. From the said details, it appears that the claimant is probably gainfully employed at some other place and/or for reasons best known to him, the claimant has abandoned the proceeding. 11. From the said details, it appears that the claimant is probably gainfully employed at some other place and/or for reasons best known to him, the claimant has abandoned the proceeding. 11. Be that as it may, at this stage, this Court is required to examine legality and propriety of the award passed by the learned Labour Court. 12. From the material available on record, more particularly the attendance card and the pay slips which the claimant had placed on record before the learned Labour Court, it has emerged that there is no dispute with regard to the factum of claimant's employment with the petitioner company. Actually, the company itself has admitted that the claimant was its employee. The company has also admitted that the claimant used to work at the mines and then he was transferred to the factory. In that view of the matter, the relationship of employer-employee between the company and the claimant is not in dispute. 13. Of course, the company denied the claimant's assertion that he joined service with the company in 1995 however the company failed to establish that the claimant had not joined service in 1995. Besides this, from the documents which were placed on record by the claimant, it appears that the claimant had placed attendance card which reflected his attendance from 22.1.1995. Besides this, the claimant also placed on record various pay slips. One of the pay slips of May 1999 wherein the amount of Rs. 1,786/- per month is shown as claimant's gross salary. In light of the said document, there is no reason to disbelieve the claimant's contention that he worked with the company from 1995 to 1999. 14. At the same time from the said pay slips, the petitioner's contention against the claimant's allegation that his salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month, appears correct and justified. As mentioned above, the pay slip of May 1999 reflects claimant's Rs. 1,786/- per month. However, the pay slip for the month of February 1999 reflects Rs. 2,019/- per month as claimant's salary. The pay slips for the months of August 1999 and November 1999 also reflect Rs. 2,019/- as claimant's salary. In this view of the matter, there is justification to believe and hold that the claimant's salary was Rs. 2,019/- per month and not Rs. 3,000/- per month, as alleged by him. 15. 2,019/- per month as claimant's salary. The pay slips for the months of August 1999 and November 1999 also reflect Rs. 2,019/- as claimant's salary. In this view of the matter, there is justification to believe and hold that the claimant's salary was Rs. 2,019/- per month and not Rs. 3,000/- per month, as alleged by him. 15. From the record it has also emerged that the claimant had worked for more than 240 days in preceding 12 months with the petitioner company before the alleged termination. Actually, it is not even the case of the petitioner company that the claimant had not worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months. 16. In this background, defence and explanation by the company is required to be considered. 17. The company claimed before the learned Labour Court that it had not terminated the service of the claimant. In the same breath, the company also contended before the learned Labour Court that it was not in a position to offer work to the workmen because GIIC had, according to the company's claim and allegation, attached the properties of the company which included its factory as well as mines. According to the company because of the said action of GIIC it was not in a position to offer work to the employees an therefore, the employees had voluntarily left service by accepting gratuity, provident fund and other dues. From the said submission and explanation by the company, it emerges that the company had discontinued its operations/activities. Neither from the written statement nor from any other evidence, the details about alleged action of GIIC come out clearly. The year and the month when GIIC allegedly took step about the properties of the company is also not brought out clearly. The learned counsel also could not provide the details. 18. Even the learned Labour Court has recorded that the company did not place any material on record to establish that GIIC had attached the properties in 2003. 19. After examining and evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned Labour Court has recorded finding that the company discontinued service of the claimant without any fault on his part and without following procedure prescribed by law. 19. After examining and evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned Labour Court has recorded finding that the company discontinued service of the claimant without any fault on his part and without following procedure prescribed by law. The learned Labour Court has also recorded that even if the petitioner company's submission with regard to the alleged action by GIIC is to be taken into account, then also the said event seems to have taken place somewhere in 2003, whereas the service of the claimant was discontinued in 1999 and that, therefore, the said submission does not help the case of the petitioner in any manner. 20. During hearing of this petition, learned advocate for the petitioner company failed to point out any material which can controvert findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court. There is neither any contrary evidence nor justification to ignore the said findings of fact by the learned Labour Court or to hold that the said finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court is perverse or unjustified. 21. In light of the factual position, the claim and demand by the workman has to be examined. The facts which have emerged are that the claimant worked for more than 12 months with the company and he had worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months and that, therefore, section 25F was attracted when the petitioner company discontinued service of the claimant. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court has brought out that the company failed to establish that the workman had voluntarily stopped reporting for work. It is also pertinent to note that the company did not take any action when the claimant allegedly stopped reporting for work after he was allegedly transferred to the factory from the mines. For such reasons, the finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court and/or conclusion declaring the company's action illegal cannot be faulted. 22. So as to assail the finding by the learned Labour Court, learned advocate for the petitioner company relied on the cross-examination of the claimant, wherein the claimant appears to have accepted that he was transferred from mines to factory and that he was not comfortable in performing duties at factory an that, therefore, he was not reporting for work. 22. So as to assail the finding by the learned Labour Court, learned advocate for the petitioner company relied on the cross-examination of the claimant, wherein the claimant appears to have accepted that he was transferred from mines to factory and that he was not comfortable in performing duties at factory an that, therefore, he was not reporting for work. However, it cannot be ignored that the claimant himself, during his cross-examination, specifically denied the suggestion that he had voluntarily stopped reporting for duty. The claimant appears to have accepted that the factory is closed down. 23. Overall evaluation of the evidence available on record establishes that the finding by the learned Labour Court that the claimant's service was discontinued without following procedure prescribed by law and/or violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be faulted. 24. After taking into account the evidence available on record and more particularly the admission by the claimant that at the relevant time, the factory and operations of the company remained closed, the learned Labour Court considered it appropriate to award lump sum compensation to the claimant instead of granting reinstatement. 25. In this context, it is relevant to note that the claimant has not challenged the said decision by the learned Labour Court and he has accepted the order by the learned Labour Court whereby the lump sum compensation is awarded and relief of reinstatement and/or backwages are not granted/are denied by the learned Labour Court. Therefore, there is no justification to interfere with the decision of the learned Labour Court and there is neither any occasion or justification to examine as to whether the learned Labour Court's decision not granting relief in form of reinstatement is justified or not. Since the claimant himself has accepted the said direction, the said issue does not survive or even arise. 26. In this view of the matter, the only grievance which is required to be considered, is with reference to the quantification of the lump sum compensation. 27. On this count, it appears that the petitioner's grievance is justified to certain extent. 28. The learned Labour Court seems to have proceeded on the premise that the claimant's salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month and on that basis, the learned Labour Court seems to have quantified compensation. 29. Whereas, it has emerged from the record that the claimant's salary was Rs. 28. The learned Labour Court seems to have proceeded on the premise that the claimant's salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month and on that basis, the learned Labour Court seems to have quantified compensation. 29. Whereas, it has emerged from the record that the claimant's salary was Rs. 2,019/- per month and not Rs. 3,000/- per month. 30. Besides this, the learned Labour Court also ought to have considered that even if the allegations by the claimant are to be believed, then also his total length of service with the company would be from 1995 to 1999, i.e. for about 4 years. The learned Labour Court also ought to have taken into account the fact that according to the claimant's allegation, his service was terminated in 1999, whereas he raised dispute in 2005, i.e. after delay of almost 6 years. The said delay could not have been ignored by the learned Labour Court. From the record, it has also emerged that after the order of reference was passed in 2005, the claimant filed his statement of claim as late as in 2008, i.e. after almost 3 years and his deposition was recorded in 2011. When above mentioned aspects are taken into account, it emerges that the quantification of lump sum compensation is not justified and the said direction deserves to be modified. Therefore, following order is passed: "(a) The impugned award is partly set aside and partly modified. (b) The findings by the learned Labour Court are not disturbed. (c) The decision of the learned Labour Court awarding lump sum compensation is also not disturbed, however, the direction to pay Rs. 75,000/- towards lump sum compensation is modified and compensation amount is reduced and the company is directed to pay Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand only) as lump sum compensation (instead of Rs. 75,000/- awarded by the learned Labour Court). (d) The award impugned in present petition is modified to the aforesaid extent." Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.