JUDGMENT : 1. The present special appeal is directed against the order of the ld. Single Judge dated 01.02.2017. 2. However, the office has pointed out delay in filing the appeal & in support thereof separate application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by affidavit. 3. The said application has not been seriously opposed by the respondent's counsel. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned. 4. The facts, in brief, which manifest from the record are that the respondent-workman was engaged on daily wages basis in March 1987 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 31.12.1992. 5. Indisputably, from the material available on record & examined by the ld. Labour Court Jaipur under its Award dated 26.07.2005, that the respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the alleged termination and compensation, as required to be paid at the time of retrenchment as contemplated u/Sec. 25-F (a) & (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not complied with holding the retrenchment to be illegal and in consequence thereof the termination order dated 31.12.1992 was found to be void and the reference was answered in affirmative terms with the direction for reinstatement of workman with continuity of service with all consequential benefits including wages for the intervening period under its award dated 26.07.2005 that came to be challenged by the appellant-writ petitioner before the ld. Single Judge and the writ petition came to be dismissed under the impugned judgment dated 01.02.2017 which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. 6. At the outset, we notice that the respondent-workman in compliance of the award dated 26.07.2005 was reinstated in service vide order dated 05.12.2006 and since then he is regularly discharging his duties obviously as a daily wager and enjoying the benefits granted to him from the alleged date of termination dated 31.12.1992. 7. After having heard counsel for the parties, we find no error which may call for our interference but at this stage taking note of the fact that the workman was reinstated on 05.12.2006, in compliance of the award of the ld. Labour Court, we called upon the parties to justify and place for perusal the wages to which the respondent-workman would be entitled for in terms of the award impugned dated 26.07.2005. 8. Labour Court, we called upon the parties to justify and place for perusal the wages to which the respondent-workman would be entitled for in terms of the award impugned dated 26.07.2005. 8. The appellant's counsel has placed before us a letter of the Dy. Conservator of Forest, Sikar dated 17.01.2018, taking note of the minimum wages prescribed/notified by the Authority from time to time for the period under computation of wages, which the respondent workman is entitled, that comes to Rs. 2,10,217/-. At the same time, the respondent-workman had also computed the amount which is also coming to Rs. 2,28,650/-. The arrears of wages to which the individual may be entitled is almost the same, as computed by the parties & taking note of the fact that he has been reinstated in service on 05.12.2006 and discharging his regular duties and taking note of the statement which has been placed for our perusal, prepared by the parties, into consideration and since no other evidence has come on record indicating that he remained in gainful employment during the intervening period for which the wages has been awarded to him under the impugned award of the ld. Labour Court. 9. In the given facts and circumstances in totality of the matter, we consider it appropriate that if a sum of Rs. 1 lakh is awarded to him towards back wages, in terms of the award of the ld. Labour Court dated 26.07.2005 that may meet the ends of justice and consider it appropriate to modify the award to the extent that at least against payment of backwages a sum of Rs. 1 lakh be paid to the respondent-workman and the same be transferred to his bank account within a period of eight weeks with the intimation to the Registry of this Court. 10. The present special appeal stands disposed of with the modification.