JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Neelkanth Mehta, learned advocate, for Mr. S.A. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 10401 of 2008, and Mr. Valmik Vyas, learned advocate, for Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate for the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 10401 of 2008. 2. So far as Special Civil Application No. 8928 of 2008 is concerned, the said petition is filed by the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 10401 of 2008 i.e. Mohammad Siddiq Kasambhai Qureshi against the same award which is challenged by the employer i.e. M/s. Golden Theater (petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 10401 of 2008) i.e. award dated 10.1.2008 passed by learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1200 of 1999. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 10401 of 2008 is the employer i.e. the establishment named Golden Theater whereas the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8928 of 2008 is the concerned employee/claimant. 3. The parties in both the petitions are common. Rival contentions for both petitions are also similar. Special Civil Application No. 10401 of 2008 apparently and obviously is a cross petition. 4. In this view of the matter, both petitions are decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as employer and employee/claimant. 5. The award dated 10.1.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1200 of 1999 is placed under challenge in captioned two petitions. By the impugned award, learned Labour Court has set aside the employer's action viz. termination of claimant's service and the learned Labour Court has directed the employer to reinstate the claimant on his original post without backwages. 6. At the outset, it is relevant and appropriate to mention that while assailing the award, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the establishment i.e. the Golden Theater is closed, its operations are closed and entire theater building is demolished and neither the establishment nor the activity nor the building now exists. 7. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from rival submissions by learned advocates for the contesting parties that the claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent employer terminated his service illegally and arbitrarily on 1.12.1998 without following procedure prescribed by law. With such allegations, the claimant demanded reinstatement. 7. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from rival submissions by learned advocates for the contesting parties that the claimant raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent employer terminated his service illegally and arbitrarily on 1.12.1998 without following procedure prescribed by law. With such allegations, the claimant demanded reinstatement. The appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad. The dispute and order of reference culminated into Reference (LCA) No. 1200 of 1999. 7.1 In the statement of claim before learned Labour Court, the claimant alleged that he was working with the opponent employer as booking clerk cum cycle stand boy since last 16 years at salary of Rs. 2,201/- p.m. He also alleged that the opponent employer abruptly terminated his service by oral instruction on 1.12.1998 without following any procedure prescribed by law. He alleged that the employer committed breach of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. With the said allegation the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated with all consequential benefits. 7.2 The opponent employer opposed the reference and resisted the demand of the claimant. In its written statement the employer denied the allegation by the claimant and the employer contended that the relationship of employer - employee did not exist between the establishment and the claimant and that the claimant had filed a suit i.e. suit being H.R.P. Civil Suit No. 1693 of 1998 and 1694 of 1998 and had also prayed for injunction from the learned Trial Court. The employer further contended that the request for interim relief prayed for by the claimant in the said suits in Small Cause Court was rejected and therefore the claimant raised such concocted dispute. The employer further contended that the very fact that the person cannot, ever be, booking clerk and cycle stand boy at the same time and the duty hours of booking clerk and cycle stand boy run simultaneously and that therefore one person cannot be both i.e. booking clerk and cycle stand boy at the same time goes to show that the claimant filed reference case on incorrect and concocted allegation which, on face of it are incorrect and unjustified. The employer also contended that the claimant had worked only 60 days with the employer for some casual work and he never worked with the establishment for 240 days. The employer also contended that the claimant had worked only 60 days with the employer for some casual work and he never worked with the establishment for 240 days. With such details and submissions the opponent employer opposed the reference case and submitted before the learned Labour Court that the reference case is based on incorrect allegation and concocted claim and that therefore the reference may be dismissed. It appears that at one stage the reference was decided vide award dated 26.11.2002 which was challenged by present petitioner by filing Special Civil Application No. 7184 of 2003 which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 27.8.2003 and reference was remanded for fresh decision. 7.3 Upon conclusion of pleadings, the learned Labour Court received documentary and oral evidence from both sides and after the parties completed the evidence, the learned Labour Court heard rival submissions and passed impugned award with above mentioned directions. 8. During hearing of these petitions, learned counsel for the employer, at the outset, reiterated the offer for full and final settlement with a view to putting final end to the litigation. Learned counsel for the employer submitted, on the basis of instruction from the employer, that the employer is ready to pay reasonable amount between 1 Lakh to 1.5 Lakhs to the respondent with a view to putting final end to entire litigation and all claims, disputes and demands of the respondent including the claim, dispute and demands raised by the claimant. The claimant, however, considered the amount/offer inadequate. 9. Further negotiations and discussion ensured between the parties and learned counsel for the employer, on instruction from the employer, offered that the employer shall pay amount of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to the claimant within period of 8 weeks. The claimant accepted the offer. 10. Therefore, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that said offer is acceptable and the claimant is ready and has agreed to receive Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to finally close the litigation. 10.1 Accordingly, a consensus is arrived at between the parties and an amicable settlement is arrived at, outside the Court, between the employer and the workman. Therefore, the learned advocates jointly submitted to dispose the petitions in light of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. 11. 2.5 Lakhs to finally close the litigation. 10.1 Accordingly, a consensus is arrived at between the parties and an amicable settlement is arrived at, outside the Court, between the employer and the workman. Therefore, the learned advocates jointly submitted to dispose the petitions in light of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. 11. In view of said consensus arrived at between the parties, the captioned petitions, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8928 of 2008 and Special Civil Application No. 10401 of 2008, are disposed of with the clarification and direction that the employer shall pay sum of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to the claimant i.e. petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8928 of 2008 within 8 weeks as full and final settlement of all claims, disputes and demands of the claimant and the claimant will receive and accept the said amount as full and final settlement of his all claims, disputes and demands, etc. including those raised by him in Special Civil Application No. 8928 of 2008. The amount shall be paid by account payee cheque to the claimant and the claimant shall execute the receipt acknowledging payment in favour of the employer declaring that the amount is received and accepted by him in full and final settlement of his claims. 12. In light of said settlement arrived at between the parties, learned counsel for the employer and the claimant jointly submitted that the award passed by learned Labour Court in Reference (LCA) No. 1200 of 1999 may be appropriately modified. 13. Therefore, in view of joint request by learned advocates, the award dated 10.1.2008 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 1200 of 1999 is modified and direction to reinstate the claimant without backwages is set aside and in lieu of said direction, the employer is directed to pay, as lump sum compensation, within 8 weeks Rs. 2.5 Lakhs to the claimant towards all claims, rights, disputes and demands of the claimant. With aforesaid clarification and observations, petitions are disposed of in light of the settlement arrived at between the parties out side the Court. Orders accordingly. Disposed off.