ORDER : Vineet Kothari, J. This writ petition has been filed by the State under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Addl. Labour Court, Hubli, in Reference No. 60/1996 (Sri. Sripat S/o Laxman Hattikar v. The Management of Senior Sericulture Inspector and another), dated 5.12.2009. 2. By the said award, the learned District Judge and Presiding Officer, Addl. Labour Court, Hubli, found that the termination of the respondent labour on 1.10.1983 was contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity, 'the Act'), since in the immediately preceding year from 30.09.1982 till 1.10.1983, the respondent had actually worked for 207 days and adding thereof to general holidays and Sundays in that year, the number of working days would count to more than 240 days and since he was terminated from the service orally without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, the Labour Court instead of reinstating the respondent workman back in service, in lieu of that, directed for payment of lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent workman by the impugned order. 3. Learned AGA, Mr. M. Kumar, appearing for the petitioners-State submitted that the said impugned order was passed by the learned Labour Court, after a remand of case by the High Court in WP No. 43744/2004(L-TER) with a direction to the respondent to implead the Director of Sericulture as a party to the proceedings and to dispose of the case on merits. Upon such remand, the Labour Court has passed the impugned order. He also submitted that after the impugned retrenchment order on 1.10.1983, the respondent workman had approached initially the Labour Court in the year 1996, after a gap of 13 years by Reference No. 60/1996 and such a belated claim ought to have been rejected by the learned Labour Court. 4. On the other hand, Mr. H.R. Gundappa, learned counsel for the respondent workman, urged that since the illegality of the retrenchment is not challenged and the delay in such case should be deemed to have been condoned. The compensation in lieu of reinstatement was awarded by the learned Labour Court does not call for any interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition filed by the State deserves to be dismissed. 5. The compensation in lieu of reinstatement was awarded by the learned Labour Court does not call for any interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition filed by the State deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the relief given by the learned Labour Court by the impugned order on 5.12.2009 by awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent workman in lieu of reinstatement, in view of the admittedly illegal retrenchment of the respondent workman which was contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, this Court does not find any ground or substantial basis in the writ petition filed by the State to quash such an award of the Labour Court. 6. Even though it may be said that there was a delay of about 13 years on the part of the respondent workman in approaching the learned Labour Court in the first instance in the year 1996, having suffered two rounds of litigation already by now and this relief having been given to him at a belated stage in the year 2009, no interference is called for in the impugned order. This Court is satisfied that the writ petition filed by the State deserves to be dismissed and the impugned award of the learned Labour Court dated 5.12.2009 deserves to be implemented forthwith. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition of the petitioners/State is dismissed with no order as to costs, with a direction to the petitioners/State to pay the lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent workman, within a period of four weeks from today, otherwise, it will bear the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court, i.e.5.12.2009 till the date of actual payment to the respondent workman.