JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 17-1-2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur (hereinafter to be referred as Labour Court). 2. Brief facts of the case are that an industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner with regard to his termination from service, which was referred by the Govt. to the learned Labour Court for its adjudication. Before the learned Labour Court, the petitioner submitted that he was appointed as LDC on 2-4-1996 and the respondents without assigning any reason terminated his services vide order dated 19-4-1997. 3. The respondents filed reply before the learned Labour Court and stated that the petitioner was a temporary employee and after completion of his tenure he was removed from service. The parties submitted the documentary evidence and the learned Labour Court after hearing & considering the evidence submitted by the parties held that the termination of the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, however, in lieu of reinstatement awarded a compensation of Rs. 1 Lac, vide award dated 17-1-2018. Hence the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was regular in nature and once the learned Labour Court held that the termination of the petitioner from service is illegal being in violation of Sec. 25F of the Act of 1947, therefore the learned Labour Court should have ordered for his reinstatement in service instead of compensation. 5. Counsel further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court is on lower side and in support of the contention counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical Education Sanstha, Nagpur v. Prashant Manikrao Kubitkar, reported in 2018 (12) SCC 294 where in para No. 2 and 3 it has been held as under:- "2. The respondent workman had worked under the Appellant for a period of two years and three months whereafter he was terminated on 1-6-1994. Judicial opinion has been consistent that if the termination is found to be contrary to Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reinstatement in service is not the rule but an exception and ordinarily grant of compensation would meet the ends of justice. Judicial opinion has been consistent that if the termination is found to be contrary to Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reinstatement in service is not the rule but an exception and ordinarily grant of compensation would meet the ends of justice. 3. The respondent workman in the present case had worked for a period of two years and three months and that apart he had approached the Labour Court after 13 years. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the order of the Labour Court and the High Court ought to be modified by granting compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) in lieu of reinstatement without back wages as ordered. It is ordered accordingly. The aforesaid amount of compensation will be paid within a period of six weeks from today." 6. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of District Development Officer & Anr. v. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, reported in 2018 (12) SCC 298 where in para Nos. 12 & 17 it has been held as under:- "12. Having gone through the entire record of the case and further keeping in view the nature of factual controversy, findings of the Labour Court, the manner in which the respondent fought this litigation on two fronts simultaneously, namely, one in Civil Court and the other in Labour Court in challenging his termination order and seeking regularization in service, which resulted in passing the two conflicting orders-one in respondents favour (Labour Court) and the other against him (civil court) and lastly, it being an admitted fact that the respondent was a daily wager during his short tenure, which lasted hardly two-and-half years approximately and coupled with the fact that 25 years has since been passed from the date of his alleged termination, we are of the considered opinion that the law laid down by this Court in BSNL v. Bhurumal would aptly apply to the facts of this case and we prefer to apply the same for disposal of these appeals. 17. Let the payment of Rs. 17. Let the payment of Rs. 2,50,000 be made by the appellant (State) to the respondent within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. payable from the date of this judgment till payment to respondent." 7. Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court and submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Labour Court is just & reasonable. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties and also the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the matters (supra), wherein compensation has been awarded in lieu of reinstatement, I deem it just and proper to modify the award of the learned Labour Court holding the petitioner entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- as awarded by the learned Labour Court. 10. Accordingly, the award passed by the learned Labour Court dated 17-1-2018 is modified and the petitioner is awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement instead of Rs. 1,00,000/- as awarded by the learned Labour Court. The respondents are directed to comply the order within a period of two months. The writ petition in the above terms stands disposed of.