JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Impugned is the award dated 23-8-2010 passed by the Labour Court No.2 Jaipur in LCR No.1277/1998 in so far as it even while holding that there was non compliance of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1947') instead of reinstatement of the petitioner directed for payment to him of a compensation of Rs.1 lac within three months failing which interest @ 6% p.a. was to be paid till the date of payment. 2. At the outset, Mr. Zakir Hussain, Additional GC appearing for the respondent department submitted that the petitioner workman, has been paid Rs.1,31,500/- through DD No.299695 dated 25-5- 2016. The said amount was accepted without demur by the workman who also executed a receipt on 30-5-2016. Thus the award having been complied with by the department and compliance having been accepted by the petitioner workman he cannot be held to be aggrieved and entitled to pursue the petition, submitted Mr. Zakir Hussain. 3. Mr. D.P. Pujari, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition was filed in 2012 while the amount under the award were receipted in May, 2016 for reason of the petitioner workman's penurious state. This Mr. Pujari submitted cannot foreclose the petitioner's right to challenge the award dated 23-8-2010 which despite holding for violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act of 1947 did not direct reinstatement. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. The petitioner was terminated while working on daily wages on 1-6-1987. That termination has been found by the Labour Court to be illegal for contravention of Section 25G of the Act of 1947 and further non compliance with Section 25G thereof. The present state of law is that where a casual daily wager has been terminated in contravention of statutory prescribed procedure and several years have lapsed in the meantime during which the vacancy of which the workman had initially been appointed as casual worker may cease to exist, it is appropriate to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement. That has been done by the Labour Court in its award dated 23-8-2010 at a time when 23 years had lapsed since the petitioner workman's termination. That has been done by the Labour Court in its award dated 23-8-2010 at a time when 23 years had lapsed since the petitioner workman's termination. And presently 32 years have lapsed during which quite evidently the very structure of employment in the forest department where the petitioner was employed is likely have changed and the petitioner not required for discharge the job he was discharging at the time of his termination. Besides admittedly the petitioner workman in the meantime has availed the compensation under the award dated 23-8-2010 without demur. In such circumstances, there is no occasion for this court to interfere with the impugned award dated 23-8-2010, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition is dismissed.