JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The petitioner by way of the present writ petition assailing the award dated 07.01.2014 passed by the Judge, Labour Court - cum - Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the Labour Court") on a reference made to it on 07.06.1999 in relation to a dispute raised by the respondent - Madan Singh Rajput as against the petitioner regarding his termination from the service on 29.12.1990. 2. The award has been passed in favour of the respondent - workman holding that there has been an apparent non-compliance of Section 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947") with a further direction to reinstate the workman and pay him backwages from the date of filing of the statement of claim before the Labour Court i.e. 24.08.1999 upto the date of gazette notification of the award. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that learned Judge, Labour Court has fallen in error while passing the impugned order in favour of the respondent - workman. The concerned respondent - workman was working on contract basis and had been appointed on a fixed amount of Rs.400/- per month and for a particular period. Learned counsel further submits that the Labour Court has also erred in holding non-compliance of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947 as the workman cannot claim his reinstatement on the basis of the persons, who had been absorbed and appointed as Class-IV Employee from another Corporation and with those who were appointed on compassionate grounds. The petitioner also assails the award on the ground of direction of reinstatement alleging that the dispute was raised after a period of nine years. 4. The petitioner also assails the award on the ground of direction of reinstatement alleging that the dispute was raised after a period of nine years. 4. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the respondent - workman supports the award passed by the Labour Court and submits that the Labour Court has examined the evidence, which had come on record threadbare and has found that the workman has worked continuously with the petitioner from 15.11.1986 to 28.11.1990 and a specific finding has also been arrived at that for the last year before termination the workman had completed 266 days continuously and while terminating his services, no notice has been given to him in terms of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 so also no compensation was awarded by the petitioner to the workman and therefore, there is non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. 5. Learned counsel also supports the findings arrived at by the Labour Court in relation to Section 25-H of the Act of 1947 and submits that specific names were mentioned, which have been noted by the Labour Court of Babulal Meena, Rajiv Chaurasiya and Shyam Sunder, who were absorbed after being deputed from other Corporation, namely, Tilam Sangh Sahakri Sang, Jaipur. It is submitted that by terminating the existing employees and bringing another persons on deputation is clearly illegal and arbitrary so also hits the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act of 1947. Learned counsel also submits that the workman has remained unemployed all throughout and has been making a request for his case to be decided and application under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 was also moved before this Court, which was allowed and an affidavit was given to the effect that the workman has not engaged in any gainful employment. Thus, he is entitled for reinstatement. 6. With regard to the delay in filing the statement of claim, it is submitted that the Labour Court has already taken care of this aspect by not granting the backwages from the date of termination, but only from the date when the statement of claim was filed i.e. 24.08.1999. It is submission that delay in deciding the case cannot be made as a ground to deny the workman his right of continuing in employment. 7. It is submission that delay in deciding the case cannot be made as a ground to deny the workman his right of continuing in employment. 7. I have considered the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the delay in raising the dispute is concerned, it is not reflected as to when the dispute was initially put up before the Conciliation Officer. The reference was made by the State Government on 06.07.1999 regarding the termination of 29.12.1990. Thus, this Court would not calculate the time from the day only when the reference was made. The counsel has not shown the date from which the conciliation proceedings were initiated by the workman. Be that as it may, it is noticed that there is no limitation provided under the Act of 1947 for raising the dispute. The petitioner has also not raised such an objection before the Labour Court. 9. This Court further notices that the workman has worked from 15.11.1986 to 28.11.1990 with the petitioner initially and it seems that he was appointed on a consolidated amount of Rs.400/- per month and thereafter, he was fixed at Rs.22/- per day as is apparent from Exhibit-DW21, which was noticed by the Labour Court. As per Exhibit-DW-21, the workman was directed to work @ Rs.22/- per day for further six months, however, before the said period was over, his services were dispensed with by the petitioner. It is also noticed that persons were brought on deputation from another Corporation, namely, Tilam Sangh Sahakri Sang, Jaipur, who were admittedly appointed later on as Class-IV Employee. Names have been mentioned for which no denial has come forward in the reply or in the statement of the witness of the petitioner (Subhash Singhal). Subhash Singhal in his statement has also admitted that the workman having worked from 15.11.1986 to 28.11.1990. 10. Having noticed the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that the Labour Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act of 1947 were not complied with and termination of the workman was rightly held to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1947. 11. 10. Having noticed the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that the Labour Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act of 1947 were not complied with and termination of the workman was rightly held to be illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1947. 11. As regards the relief, this Court notices that the workman had worked for the period from 1986 to 1990 as a daily wager and has been reinstated by the award dated 07.01.2004, but the award was stayed by this Court vide its order dated 13.01.2005. The said interim order was confirmed by this Court and thereafter, the application under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 was allowed, which resulted in payment of wages last drawn by the workman to be released in his favour. At the same time, it is also noticed that the workman on account of pendency of this case and before the Labour Court could not take up employment any where else, he has thus been prevented from taking up employment anywhere else. 12. In the circumstances, therefore, while this Court feels that after so many years i.e. from 1990 to till date, it would not be just and proper to direct the respondent to be reinstated as a daily wager with the petitioner, still the respondent would be at least entitled to a compensation for having been prevented from working any where else also. The delay in the pendency cannot be attributed to him at all as it is more on account of the petitioner, who preferred a petition before this Court challenging the award, which remained pending for quite long time. A sum of Rs.7.5 lacs is, therefore, directed to be paid in addition to whatever has been paid to the workman as in terms of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 order passed earlier. 13. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid modification of the award dated 07.01.2014 passed by the Labour Court that instead of reinstatement and backwages, the respondent - workman would be entitled to a sum of Rs.7.5 lacs as a lump-sum amount apart from the amount which has already been paid to him under the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 by the petitioner. The compensation shall be released to the workman within a period of one month from today. 14. An option is also available with the petitioner that if they do not want to compensate the workman shall be reinstated along with backwages, then in that case, the Labour Court's award shall be complied with in its true letter and spirit. 15. All the applications pending stand disposed of.