JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking to challenge the award dated 12.02.2009, passed by the Labour Court in reference (LCB) no.110 of 2001, whereby, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference and ordered the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service, consequential benefits and with 20% back wages. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has failed to prove by legal evidence that he had completed service of 240 days in a calender year/ last 12 months preceding the date of alleged action of termination of his service. Mr. Munshaw submitted that the respondent also failed to prove that after his termination his juniors were continued in service or that new persons were employed as daily wager. Referring to the document at Annexure-A to the petition, Mr. Munshaw submitted that such was the order passed by the Commissioner on 25.07.1990 for appointment of the respondent as daily wager and if the service period of the respondent is counted from the above date of his appointment, the respondent could not be said to have completed one year of service on the date when he was allegedly relieved from service. Mr. Munshaw submitted that the respondent raised dispute in relation to termination of his service after long period of more than 10 years and therefore, the respondent could not be held entitled to the benefit of reinstatement with other benefits as awarded by the Labour Court. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya appearing for the respondent submitted that the document at Annexure-A was never produced by the petitioner on the record of reference and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to rely on such document before this Court while making challenge to the impugned award. Mr. Pandya submitted that as observed in the impugned award, the petitioner was though called upon to produce the documents like Muster Roll Salary Register, etc. the petitioner failed to produce such documents before the Labour Court and did not give any evidence to show that the respondent was appointed on 25.07.1990. Mr. Mr. Pandya submitted that as observed in the impugned award, the petitioner was though called upon to produce the documents like Muster Roll Salary Register, etc. the petitioner failed to produce such documents before the Labour Court and did not give any evidence to show that the respondent was appointed on 25.07.1990. Mr. Pandya submitted that when the respondent discharged his onus by entering into the witness box to prove that he completed more than one year of service preceding the action taken by the petitioner of termination of his service and when the petitioner failed to produce any documents concerning the service rendered by the respondent, the Labour Court could not be said to have committed any error in reaching to the conclusion that the respondent continuously served for more than one year and that the petitioner committed breach of provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (the Act). Mr. Pandya submitted that in any case, the Labour Court has also found that the petitioner committed breach of provisions of Section 25 G and H of the Act. Mr. Pandya submitted that since there is no time limit prescribed for raising the dispute and since the Labour Court has recorded clear finding as regards breach of provisions of Section 25 G and H of the Act, the delay in raising the dispute would not make the respondent dis-entitled to relief available under the provisions of the Act and therefore the impugned award of the Labour Court may not be interfered with, in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 4. The Court having heard learned advocates finds that as rightly submitted by learned advocate Mr. Pandya that since document at Annexure-A was not placed by the petitioner on the record of the reference, such document could not be considered at this stage by this Court while examining the challenge made to the impugned award. It is required to note that the Labour Court in its impugned award has observed that the petitioner was though asked to produce the documents like Muster Roll, Salary Register and Pay Voucher, it did not produce such documents. The respondent gave his oral evidence wherein, he has stated that he continuously served with the petitioner from 14.04.1990 and his services were terminated without any reason on 30.05.1991. The respondent gave his oral evidence wherein, he has stated that he continuously served with the petitioner from 14.04.1990 and his services were terminated without any reason on 30.05.1991. As against such oral evidence adduced by the respondent, the witness examined by the petitioner stated in his evidence that he had no knowledge of the services rendered by the petitioner and at same time, the Labour Court has observed that the petitioner did not produce any document though called upon to produce. 5. The Court therefore finds that the only evidence left to be considered by the Labour Court was the oral evidence of the respondent, wherein, the respondent clearly stated that he served with the petitioner from 14.04.1990 to 30.05.1991, which would make more than one year of his period of service and therefore it could be said that preceding the action of relieving the respondent from service was taken, the respondent had completed more than 240 days of service. 6. In above view of the matter, the Labour Court has committed no error in reaching to the conclusion that the petitioner committed breach of provisions of Section 25 F of the Act while terminating the services of the respondent. However, as regards the Labour Court's conclusion that the petitioner committed breach of Section 25 G and H of the Act, the Court finds that such conclusion was reached on the basis of oral evidence of the respondent wherein, the respondent had not given any details/ particulars of the workmen who were continued in service as daily wager after the services of the respondent were put an end to and the petitioner came out with specific case that no junior of the respondent was continued in service nor any fresh employment was made of daily wager. The Labour Court therefore, committed an error in recording that the petitioner committed breach of Section 25 G and H of the Act. 7. However, the fact remains that on appreciation of the evidence, the Labour Court reached to the finding that the respondent completed service of more than one year and that the petitioner committed breach of provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. Ordinarily, when breach of provisions of Section 25 F is found, the workman would become entitled to reinstatement in service. Ordinarily, when breach of provisions of Section 25 F is found, the workman would become entitled to reinstatement in service. However, when the facts of the case warrant, the Court may consider to grant lump-sum compensation even if the breach of provisions of Section 25 F is found. 8. In the case on hand, indisputably, as per the evidence of the respondent, the respondent served only for a period from 14.04.1990 to 30.05.1991, which would make one year and nearly one month. It is required to note that in relation to the termination of his service in the year 1991, the respondent raised dispute after about 10 years. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya could not dispute that the respondent raised dispute in relation to termination of his service after a period of 10 years which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. There is no limitation prescribed under the Act for raising dispute and the Labour Court has also not recorded that when the reference was made to it, no Industrial Dispute existed for adjudication by it, but the fact remains that after 10 years, the respondent raised dispute. Considering such delay in raising dispute and considering the fact that the respondent had served only for one year and nearly one month and also considering the fact that about more than 18 years from the date of reference has passed, the respondent could not be made entitled to reinstatement in service with other benefits as awarded by the Labour Court, instead, grant of reasonable lump-sum compensation in lieu of his reinstatement and other consequential benefits granted by the Labour Court would meet the ends of justice. Such reasonable compensation could be fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly the impugned award could be modified/ substituted. 9. In the case of State of Uttarakhand and another V/s. Raj Kumar, 2019 AIR SC 310, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph nos.12 to 15 as under: "12. Here is also a case where the respondent claimed to have worked as daily wager hardly for a period of one year or so in PWD of the State; Secondly, he had no right to claim regularization; Thirdly, he had no right to continue as daily wager and lastly, the dispute was raised by the respondent (workman) almost after 25 years of the alleged termination before the Labour Court. 13. 13. It is for these reasons, we are of the view that the case of the respondent would squarely fall in the category of cases discussed by this Court in Para 34 of the judgment rendered In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (2014) AIR SC 1188) (supra). 14. In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the considered view that it would be just, proper and reasonable to award lump sum monetary compensation to the respondent in full and final satisfaction of his claim of re-instatement and other consequential benefits by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Act and the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limiteds case, (2014) AIR SC 1188) (supra). 15. Having regard to the totality of the facts taken note of supra, we consider it just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh) to the respondent in lieu of his right to claim re-instatement and back wages in full and final satisfaction of this dispute in place of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Labour Court. Only to this extent we modify the award of the Labour Court in quantum of award of compensation by enhancing it from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh)." 10. In light of the above and for the reasons stated above, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned award for grant of reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits with 20% back wages, shall stand substituted by following order: (a) The respondent is held entitled to receive lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of his reinstatement in service and other benefits from the petitioner. (b) The petitioner is ordered to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent as lump-sum compensation by Account Payee cheque, on or before 10.04.2019. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.