JUDGMENT 1. The appellant / private respondent has preferred this appeal claiming the following relief:- "It is, therefore, prayed that the Appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.09.2007 may kindly be set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 may kindly be dismissed with costs and the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 29.06.1995 may kindly be ordered to be implemented with all consequential benefits in its entirety. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellants." 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/private respondent submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the award dated 29.06.1995 passed by the learned labour court is bad in the eye of law, because though the project had come to an end, but the appellant, after being appointed as Supervisor vide order dated 02.09.1976, continued for eight long years till 01.08.1984. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that since at the time of termination of the service i.e. on 31.07.1984, the provision of sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act was not into existence, therefore, the termination would fall within the purview of retrenchment as the mandatory provision was not followed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the question of retrenchment does not arise as the termination was co-terminus with the project, and thus, the impugned order is justified. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court, in limited intervention, takes note of the fact that the appellant was in service from 02.09.1976 to 01.08.1984, and thus, continued for eight years, and since the amendment of sub-clause (bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act was not in place, therefore, the termination of the appellant/private respondent would fall within the definition of retrenchment. 7. Since retrenchment compensation has not been paid, therefore, while not allowing the prayer for reinstatement, in the limited intervention, this Court allows compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant/private respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present appeal stands disposed of. 7. Since retrenchment compensation has not been paid, therefore, while not allowing the prayer for reinstatement, in the limited intervention, this Court allows compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant/private respondent. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present appeal stands disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.