ORDER : M.N. BHANDARI, J. 1. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been considered, which is not seriously opposed by the counsel for the non-appellant No. 1-workman. Thus, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed after accepting the reasons given for condonation of delay and as it is not seriously opposed by the non-appellant. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been filed to challenge the award of learned Labour Court as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants. 3. It is a case where non-appellant-workman has worked with the appellants between 1985 till 1988. He is said to have been discontinued from service w.e.f. 31.10.1988. It is without compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act of 1947). The dispute against the retrenchment was raised after lapse of almost nine to ten years i.e. in the year 1998. The learned Labour Court found retrenchment to be illegal and, accordingly, directed for reinstatement of the workman with fifty per cent back wages. The learned Single Judge did not cause interference in the award. 4. The challenge to the award has been made on the ground of delay of nine to ten years in raising the dispute. It is even against direction for reinstatement when workman-employee was not selected as per rules. In such cases, a lump sum amount could have been given in lieu of reinstatement. A prayer is accordingly made to pay a lump sum amount of compensation in place of the relief granted by the learned Labour Court. 5. Learned counsel for the non-appellant workman has contested the appeal. He submits that a just and proper award has been passed by the learned Labour Court. The workman has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2011 thus by efflux of time, the relief of reinstatement cannot be given effect. He is, however, entitled to the benefit of semi permanent and permanent status due to continuity of service. It is to be made admissible as the appellants failed to reinstate the workman despite an award prior to attaining the age of superannuation. The prayer is accordingly not to cause interference in the award as well as judgment of the learned Single Judge. 6. It is to be made admissible as the appellants failed to reinstate the workman despite an award prior to attaining the age of superannuation. The prayer is accordingly not to cause interference in the award as well as judgment of the learned Single Judge. 6. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that workman has already attained the age of superannuation, that too, in the year 2011. In view of above, a direction for his reinstatement cannot be given effect. The interference in the award as well as in the judgment passed by learned Single Judge has to be made at least to that extent. The question now remains about the award of fifty per cent back wages. We find that as against the alleged termination in January, 1988, a dispute was raised after nine to ten years in 1998. A workman raising dispute with the delay of ten years cannot be held entitled for the back wages for that period. He would, however, be entitled to the wages from the date of raising the dispute till attaining the age of superannuation. 8. We directed to the parties to make calculations of the due amount of the intervening period starting from the year 1998 till 2011. According to the workman, total sum of intervening period comes to Rs. 3,75,840/-, whereas, according to the appellants, it comes to Rs. 3,05,890/-. If fifty per cent of the amount given by both the parties is taken then it comes to nearly Rs. 1,87,920/- and Rs. 1,52,945/- respectively. There is difference of amount in two calculations. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that mean of the two figures should be taken for award of compensation in settlement of the dispute and, accordingly, workman is held entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- towards fifty per cent back wages. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Shri Om Prakash Kumhar in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1432/2006 decided on 26.08.2017, where the lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been awarded but we find that Apex Court has awarded a sum of Rs. v. Shri Om Prakash Kumhar in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1432/2006 decided on 26.08.2017, where the lump sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been awarded but we find that Apex Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division Kota v. Mohan Lal, 2013 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 492 : Civil Appeal No. 6795/2013 decided on 16.08.2013. 10. The formula to determine the compensation has not been evolved, however, we have tried to make calculation for it. The amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- has been calculated based on the award for fifty per cent back wages. The amount aforesaid would be paid to the workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, it would carry interest @ 7 per cent per annum from expiry of the period of three months. The award as well as judgment of the learned Single Judge are substituted with the aforesaid. The workman's claim for semi permanent and permanent status cannot be accepted as it was not subject matter of reference before the Labour Court and even no claim before it was made, thus not awarded. The workman had not even challenged the award thereupon to claim those benefits. 11. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed with substitution of the relief granted by Labour Court.