JUDGMENT K.M. Thaker, J. Heard Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. By this petition, the petitioner-electricity company has challenged award dated 17.04.2014 passed by learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad in reference (LCA) No. 1314 of 2001. By that order, the Court has directed present petitioner to reinstate present respondent in service, on original post, with continuity of service and 10% backwages. 3. So far as factual background is concerned, the narration of relevant facts are found in paragraph Nos.2.1 to 2.9 of the petition, which read thus:- "2.1 By way of present petition the petitioner seeks to challenge absolutely illegal and unjust award dated 17.04.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in reference (LCA) No. 1314 of 2001. A copy of impugned award dated 17.04.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in reference (LCA) No. 1314 of 2001 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-A. By the impugned award the Labour Court partly allowed the reference of respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent No.1 in service with continuity if service and 10% backwages. 2.2 The respondent No.1 raised industrial dispute inter alia alleging that respondent No.1 was serving as a Junior Clerk since last 15 years with the petitioner and he came to be illegally terminated by the petitioner. The case of respondent No.1 came to be referred to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad being reference (LCA) No. 1314 of 2001. 2.3 Before the Labour Court respondent No. 1 filed his statement of claim. A copy of statement of claim filed by respondent No. 1 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-B. The petitioner filed its written statement against the statement of claim filed by respondent No. 1. A copy of written statement filed by the petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-C. The petitioner pointed out that respondent No.1 was never employed by the petitioner. In fact the respondent No.1 was working on ad-hoc and contract basis and was paid on voucher. The respondent No. 1 was being granted contract on ad-hoc basis for loading-unloading work and respondent No.1 was paid on voucher upon the respondent No.1 raising bills. 2.4 The petitioner produced certain documentary evidence on record to show that respondent No. 1 was never engaged much less even daily wager. The respondent No.1 was working on contractual basis. The respondent No. 1 was being granted contract on ad-hoc basis for loading-unloading work and respondent No.1 was paid on voucher upon the respondent No.1 raising bills. 2.4 The petitioner produced certain documentary evidence on record to show that respondent No. 1 was never engaged much less even daily wager. The respondent No.1 was working on contractual basis. The respondent No. 1 was raising bills after loading-unloading work allotted to him is completed and he was paid on voucher. Copies of certain bills raised by respondent No. 1 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-D. The petitioner paid respondent No. 1 on the imprest cash account. A copy of one such abstract of imprest cash account is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-E. 2.5 Before the Labour Court the respondent No. 1 filed application seeking certain documents. A copy of application dated 23.10.2002 field by respondent No.1 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-F. The petitioner filed reply to the said application. A copy of reply filed by the petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-G. 2.6 Before the Labour Court respondent No.1 examined himself and he was cross-examined. A copy of deposition of respondent No, 1 along with his cross-examination is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-H. In the meanwhile the Labour Court directed the petitioner to produce documents which were sought by the respondent No.1 by its interim order dated 11.03.2008. A copy of order dated 11.03.2008 passed by the Labour Court is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-I. The petitioner presented the available documents. A copy of documentary list dated 10.08.2009 filed by the petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-J. The petitioner craves liberty to refer to and reply upon the said documentary evidence at the time of hearing of the present petition. The petitioner pointed out by producing certain muster rolls that name of respondent No. 1 is not appearing in the muster roll and he was never an employee of the petitioner. Since other documents were not available, the same could not be produced. 2.7 On behalf of the petitioner, Mohammedzuber M. Shaikh and Darshan M. Majmudar came to be examined. A copy of evidence of both the witnesses is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-K. 2.8 It is pertinent to note that the respondent No.1 did not produce any documentary evidence to prove his case. 2.7 On behalf of the petitioner, Mohammedzuber M. Shaikh and Darshan M. Majmudar came to be examined. A copy of evidence of both the witnesses is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-K. 2.8 It is pertinent to note that the respondent No.1 did not produce any documentary evidence to prove his case. There was nothing on record to show that respondent No. 1 has ever worked as an employee of the petitioner. On the contrary, documentary evidence clearly suggested that respondent No. 1 was working contractually as and when work was available and he was paid by imprest cash account. 2.9 In is pertinent to note that despite failure on the part of respondent No.1 to produce documentary evidence to prove his case and despite there was nothing on record to show that respondent No.1 has worked with the petitioner for 240 days in an year preceding to his termination, Labour Court drawn adverse inference and held that there is violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is pertinent to note that the Labour court held that violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not established." 3.1 From the said narration by the petitioner, it emerges that present respondent raised industrial dispute with the allegation that he was employee of electricity company. He alleged that he worked as a Junior Clerk for almost 15 years, before the electricity company terminated his services without following procedure and in breach of statutory provisions. The opponent - electricity company disputed and denied the allegations. Electricity company disputed the claim that the claimant was its worker and/or that he was employed as and he worked as Junior Clerk. The company claimed that claimant was awarded contract for loading and uploading work. Therefore, question of termination of services of claimant did not arise and similarly question of complying statutory requirements also did not arise. It was also claimed that when the contract expired, engagement also came to end and that therefore, the claimant has no cause of action against the company. 3.2 The learned Labour Court received evidence from both sides. During the proceedings of reference before learned Labour Court, the claimant had filed application and sought direction that the company should be directed to place on record the documents mentioned in the application. 3.2 The learned Labour Court received evidence from both sides. During the proceedings of reference before learned Labour Court, the claimant had filed application and sought direction that the company should be directed to place on record the documents mentioned in the application. After considering the objection by the company, learned Labour Court passed order directing the company to place on record the said documents. From the record, it appears that the company did not place on record all documents, but placed on record only part of the documents and in respect of other documents, the company claimed that said documents are not available. Learned Labour Court recorded deposition of the claimant. The company examined two employees as witnesses of the company. Upon conclusion of evidence and the proceedings, learned Labour Court heard rival submissions and thereafter, learned Labour Court passed impugned award with above mentioned direction. 3.3 Against and in support of impugned award, several submissions are made by learned advocates for petitioner and respondents. 3.4 However, in view of peculiar facts which is on record (from the award) and the details submitted by learned advocates, it has emerged that it would not be necessary to enter into rival contentions that petition can be disposed of, in light of one peculiar fact viz. procedural irregularity in conducting the proceedings and in rendering the award. 3.5 From the submissions and from the material available on record and from the award, it has emerged that the award challenged in present petition is erroneous on account of procedural irregularity. 3.6 As mentioned above, the workman had, during the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, demanded certain documents from opponent electricity company and for the said purpose, filed application seeking direction against the company to place on record the documents. 3.7 Undisputedly, the said application was submitted before the learned Labour Court recorded oral evidence. Undisputedly, the documents were relevant and necessary for effective decision in the reference case. Even, the learned Labour Court considered the said documents necessary and relevant for effective decision in the case. 3.8 After considering company's reply and relevance of the documents, the justification explained by the workman, learned Labour Court passed specific order directing the company to place on record the documents demanded by the claimant. 4. So as to appreciate this aspect, it is relevant and necessary to take into account certain dates. 3.8 After considering company's reply and relevance of the documents, the justification explained by the workman, learned Labour Court passed specific order directing the company to place on record the documents demanded by the claimant. 4. So as to appreciate this aspect, it is relevant and necessary to take into account certain dates. Below mentioned dates are relevant and important to appreciate procedural irregularity:- 4.1 From the record, it has emerged that the claimant submitted the application seeking production of document in October, 2002 (23.10.2002). 4.2 By means of the said application, the claimant demanded that the company should place on record (a) imprest cash account book; and (b) vouchers of stores department at Bavla division (for a period from 1986 to 2001); and (c) logbook in respect of vehicles used by the stores department at Bavla division (for a period from 1986 to 2001); and (d) the MR/CR of materials and transformer stock issued in record in the MR/CR (during a period of 1986 to 2001); and (e) the gate pass issued during the period from 1986 to 2001); and (f) muster roll/attendance register; and (g) wage register (for a period from 1986 to 2001); as well as (h) vouchers for payment of wages as fixed salary for the said period. 4.3 Copy of said application was submitted on record of the learned Labour Court on 23.10.2002 and the copy was sent to learned advocate for the opponent-electricity company as well. 4.4 The company filed its objection in response to said application vide its reply dated 16.07.2003. 4.5 Unfortunately, learned Labour Court did not pass any order in respect of the said application for long time. 4.6 In view of nature and scope of the application, more particularly in light of the fact that deposition of the claimant and/or of the witnesses of the company were not recorded as on the date when claimant submitted the application and/or when the company filed the reply, it was not necessary to emphasize need for Court's decision and direction before the stage of recording evidence of workman and company's witness, commenced. The said need was obvious and that the learned Labour Court should have appreciated that necessary and appropriate order was necessary and such order should be passed expeditiously and without delay so that the workman may get effective opportunity to conduct cross examination of company's witness. The said need was obvious and that the learned Labour Court should have appreciated that necessary and appropriate order was necessary and such order should be passed expeditiously and without delay so that the workman may get effective opportunity to conduct cross examination of company's witness. Unfortunately, learned Labour Court not only ignored the said aspect but the Court proceeded with and conducted further proceedings without passing order with reference to said application by the workman. Since the learned Labour Court did not pass any order in respect of the said application, the workman, ultimately, filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. The said affidavit dated 15.02.2007 came to be filed on record of the learned Labour Court on 19.03.2007. It is pertinent to note that in the meanwhile almost five years rolled by (from October 2002 to March 2007). However, during this period, the Court did not pass any order in respect of the workman's application. This "no-order" situation adversely affected the workman since he was deprived of the benefit of relevant documents while conducting the cross-examination of company's witness. 4.7 At the time, the claimant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination, he did not get opportunity to deal with and explain crucial aspects coming out from said documents and he was handicapped to lead his oral evidence, more particularly to deal with and explain the entries in various forms, registers, ledger, etc. The workman also felt handicapped in conducting cross-examination of company's witness, inasmuch as he could not raise/put relevant and necessary questions (which, in ordinary course, arose from the contents of the documents/entries in the said documents) to the company's witness during cross-examination. 4.8 Before proceeding further, it is relevant to recall that the application came to be filed in October 2002 and the company filed its reply in July 2003, however, for almost 4 years, the learned Labour Court did not pass any direction with regard to said application. Since for almost 4 years, the learned Labour Court did not pass any order in respect of application submitted by the workman, he was constrained and left with no alternative, but to file affidavit in lieu of chief examination. In this backdrop, the workman filed his affidavit (in lieu of chief examination) in February/March, 2007. Since for almost 4 years, the learned Labour Court did not pass any order in respect of application submitted by the workman, he was constrained and left with no alternative, but to file affidavit in lieu of chief examination. In this backdrop, the workman filed his affidavit (in lieu of chief examination) in February/March, 2007. 4.9 The company conducted cross-examination of the workman in February 2008 (17.2.2008) i.e. almost 1 year after the claimant filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination. At this stage, it is relevant to note that since the Court did not pass any order, the company did not place on record the documents demanded by the workman and any question with regard to said documents (there contents and the entries therein) were not put to the workman during his cross-examination. The said documents were not shown to the workman during his cross examination. Therefore, at that stage also, the workman lost opportunity to deal with the said documents and/or offer any explanation with regard to the contents of the documents or the entries therein, the handwriting, signature, etc. He did not deal with said documents and could not elicit any reply clarification etc. during cross examination of company's witness. Differently put, the workman was deprived of reasonable opportunity of hearing. By that time, almost 6 years had passed after the claimant submitted the application for production of documents. It was only thereafter (i.e. after the company completed cross examination of the workman) that the learned Labour Court passed order in March 2008 (11.3.2008) and directed the company to place on record all documents mentioned by the claimant in his application dated 23.10.2002. 4.10 On plain reading of the said order dated 11.3.2008, it emerges that the learned Labour Court considered the reply/objections by the company. It is necessary to mention that after considering the case set up by the company in its written statement and the case set up by the claimant in the statement of claim, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the documents demanded by the workman are relevant and necessary for effective decision of the reference case and the issues involved in the reference case. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 11.3.2008, the learned Labour Court directed the company to place on record the said documents. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 11.3.2008, the learned Labour Court directed the company to place on record the said documents. 4.11 As mentioned above, subsequently i.e. after almost 1 year (i.e. in August 2009), the company partially complied the order and placed on record only few documents, whereas in respect of other documents, the company claimed that they are not available. 4.12 The order dated 11.3.2008 was not challenged by the company at the relevant time. For the first time, the company challenged said order dated 11.3.2008, in present petition. 5. From above discussed facts, it becomes clear that the said documents were necessary for the claimant to lead evidence. If the documents were made available on record before recording oral evidence, he could have raised proper contentions effectively and during his deposition, he could have dealt with the documents and at the stage of cross-examination of company's witness, the workman could have raised and put relevant and necessary questions to the company's witness. Further, if same order had been passed expeditiously and at proper stage, the company would have been obliged to show the documents to the claimant during claimant's cross examination and thereby, the claimant would have got opportunity to deal with the said documents and explain certain crucial aspects which emerge from the documents. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that despite said defect or irregularity, the company made reference of said documents and tried to put, before the Court, convenient explanation as regards the said documents. Not only this, but the learned Labour Court has also taken into account the said documents and certain observations and findings with regard to said documents have been recorded by learned Labour Court and some of the observations (with regard to said documents) have been recorded in the award without following proper procedure of "admission of documents in evidence". Undisputedly, the workman has been deprived of the said opportunities and he could not avail aid of said documents during the stage of evidence. 6. Undisputedly, the workman has been deprived of the said opportunities and he could not avail aid of said documents during the stage of evidence. 6. From foregoing discussion, it comes out clearly : (a) that the learned Labour Court, in the first place, committed procedural irregularity in not passing the order in respect of the application dated 23.10.2002 for almost 6 years; (b) the said order dated 11.3.2008 came to be passed after cross examination of the workman got concluded in February 2008; (c) the said delay in passing the order in respect of application dated 23.10.2002 has adversely affected the interest of the claimant and his case; and (d) the delay deprived the workman effective opportunity of hearing. It is pertinent to note that (a) even the labour Court, having regard to the facts of the case and pleadings of both sides, reached to the conclusion that the said documents are relevant and necessary for effective decision; (b) the documents were in exclusive possession of the company; (c) the Court reached the conclusion and passed order; (d) however, by that time, evidence of both sides was recorded. The said delay has, thus, vitiated the proceedings. The said defect and irregularity also tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice and denial of effective opportunity of hearing to the claimant. The learned Labour Court multiplied said irregularity by entering/admitting the said documents as "evidence" without following procedure of admitting the documents on record as evidence. It is also relevant to note that (a) at the relevant time, the company did not challenge the order dated 11.3.2008; (b) the delay in passing the order caused harm to the workman, rather more harm to the workman; (c) the said delay in passing the order, coupled with the fact that in the meanwhile the labour Court conducted further proceedings (without passing any order with regard to the application) deprived the workman effective opportunity of hearing; (d) without granting opportunity to the workman to deal with the documents/to lead appropriate evidence in that context, the Court relied on said documents; (e) due to such irregularities, the process is vitiated. 6.1 For almost 6 years, the company did not challenge the order dated 11.3.2008. 6.1 For almost 6 years, the company did not challenge the order dated 11.3.2008. Now, when final award dated 17.4.2014 is rendered against the company and learned Labour Court has recorded certain observations and findings in the award, by taking the said documents, the company found it necessary to challenge the said order dated 11.3.2008. It appears that with a view to providing a platform for challenging the learned Labour Court's observations and findings with regard to the documents, the company considered it necessary to also challenge the order dated 11.3.2008 and therefore, the company also challenged, in present petition, after almost 7 years, the said order dated 11.3.2008. Be that as it may, the fact remains that now almost 7 years after the Court passed the order dated 11.3.2008 and after having partially complied the said order dated 11.3.2008, the company has raised challenge against the said order. 7. Foregoing discussion has brought out that procedural irregularities. For aforesaid reasons, the award cannot be sustained. In this situation, it would, ordinarily, become necessary for this Court to remand the proceedings for fresh decision after granting opportunity to lead evidence to both sides. At this stage, learned advocates for the company and claimant jointly submitted that in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, more particularly the fact that the claimant has already attained age of superannuation and that therefore, the claimant, even otherwise, would not be able to pursue his demand for reinstatement and actual reinstatement of the claimant would not be practicable and feasible, the Court may consider the option of awarding lump sum compensation by modifying the award appropriately. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the company submitted that at the time when the claimant raised industrial dispute (by filing complaint in the office of Labour Commissioner in 2000-2001) the claimant was almost 42 years old and that by now, the claimant has reached age of superannuation. Having mentioned said fact, the learned advocate for the claimant and the learned advocate for the company jointly submitted that remanding the proceedings for fresh decision would result into consuming more time and it would cause more hardship to the workman (including further cost and expenses) and that therefore, the award may be appropriately modified. On this count, Mr. Having mentioned said fact, the learned advocate for the claimant and the learned advocate for the company jointly submitted that remanding the proceedings for fresh decision would result into consuming more time and it would cause more hardship to the workman (including further cost and expenses) and that therefore, the award may be appropriately modified. On this count, Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the workman submitted, on instruction from the workman, that if the company agrees to pay amount equivalent to retrenchment compensation and gratuity and some additional amount, then, the workman would accept such payment in full and final settlement of all disputes, claimant's rights and demand, etc. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the company submitted that the company would not have any objection in payment of reasonable amount as lump sum compensation, but not under any particular heading or by any particular description. Mr. Patel, learned counsel submitted that the workman is also not interested in attaching any label or description to the payment and he, upon having reached age of superannuation, will be satisfied with the payment of reasonable compensation. 8. After mature deliberation, learned counsel for the claimant submitted, on instruction from and with consent of the claimant, that if lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakhs is paid it would be appropriate relief and the workman is ready and willing to accept the said amount as full and final payment in respect of all claims, disputes and rights. The learned counsel for the company would fairly submit that the petitioner company accepts the decision awarding lump sum compensation, however, so far as the quantum is concerned, the company would leave the decision as regards quantification of the amount to the discretion by the Court. 8.1 Having regard to all facts of present case and material available on record, this Court is of the view that present petition can be disposed of at this stage, instead of remanding the reference case to the learned Labour Court for fresh decision on merits after granting opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence. This Court is of the opinion that if impugned award is partly set aside and modified at this stage with direction to the company to pay lump sum compensation, then interest of justice would be served and would also curtail the delay and agony of both sides. This Court is of the opinion that if impugned award is partly set aside and modified at this stage with direction to the company to pay lump sum compensation, then interest of justice would be served and would also curtail the delay and agony of both sides. 8.2 After considering the period of service which the claimant allegedly rendered, the time consumed in the proceedings before the learned Labour Court, the period between the date of termination and the date on which the claimant attained age of superannuation, rate of wages, quantification of retrenchment compensation gratuity and other claims, the Court is of the view that lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakhs is reasonable amount which the company should pay to the claimant. 9. Therefore, following order is passed:- [a] For reasons mentioned above and in light of foregoing discussion, impugned award is partly set aside and modified with direction that the company shall pay, within eight weeks, a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs to the claimant in lieu of the directions passed by learned Labour Court in impugned award. [b] The said amount shall be paid as lump sum compensation and on such payment, any dispute, claim, demand or right of the claimant against the company would not survive and the said amount shall be treated as payment in respect of all claims, dues, demands and rights of the claimant. [c] The direction/payment is special case in peculiar facts of present case; and [d] The payment shall not be treated or used (in other cases) as precedent, for any purpose. With aforesaid observations and direction, present petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent. Interim arrangement, if any, stands vacated.