JUDGMENT : 1. This restoration application has been filed by the appellant for restoration of Special Appeal No. 524/12, which stands dismissed in terms of order dated 13.2.17 passed by a coordinate Bench of this court for non prosecution. 2. It is noticed that the notices issued to the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were received unserved. The appellant did not file the requisites for a period of about four years and therefore, on 13.2.17, a coordinate Bench of this court passed a peremptory order in the following terms: "Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to satisfy the requisites by tomorrow. In the event of failure to do so, the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench." 3. The appellant though filed the notices, the same were found to be incorrect and therefore, in terms of peremptory order, the special appeal stood dismissed. 4. The restoration application filed is barred by limitation for 45 days, which is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 5. It is noticed that the appellant had not filed the notices for a period of four years and thus, keeping in view the callous negligence on the part of the appellant, peremptory order was passed by this court as aforesaid, which was also not fully complied with by the appellant inasmuch as, the notices filed were found to be incorrect and therefore, we are not inclined to grant any further indulgence to the appellant. 6. However, in the interest of justice, we have examined the matter on merits as well. 7. It is pertinent to note that the services of the appellant, who was employed as Jaldhari (Class IV employee) on daily wages basis on 1.7.86 were terminated w.e.f. 5.12.96. The dispute was raised, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court vide notification dated 27.6.02 after a lapse of about 5 years. The retrenchment compensation and the wages in lieu of notice was paid to the appellant, however, the compensation given was not considered adequate by the Labour Court inasmuch as, the compensation payable was calculated on the basis of the wages payable for 26 days per month instead of 30 days and accordingly, while declaring the retrenchment illegal, the Labour Court awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant. 25,000/- to the appellant. The amount of lump sum compensation has been enhanced by the learned Single Judge from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 8. It is well settled that while determining the issue regarding reinstatement in service, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is required to exercise the discretion vested in it judicially and the relevant factors therefor such as nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of job etc. should weigh with the court for determination of such issue. 9. In the instant case, where the appellant was only a daily wages employee not recruited against the regular post in the cadre had raised the dispute after a lapse of about 5 years, keeping in view, the position of law settled by the Apex Court by way of various decisions, this court is of the considered opinion that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in awarding compensation to the appellant in lieu of reinstatement cannot be faulted with. The amount of compensation determined by the Labour Court being meagre, the learned Single Judge granting the indulgence has already enhanced the compensation payable from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- and thus, no fruitful purpose will be served in restoring the appeal, dismissing in terms of peremptory order. 10. In the result, the restoration application is dismissed.