JUDGMENT : In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which has been held through Video Conferencing today at 10:30 a.m. onwards. They have no complaint in respect to the audio and video clarity and quality. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing /setting aside of the Award dated 05.05.2014 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Govt., Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No.178/1997, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been directed to regularize the services of the respondent against a regular post at once without giving any back wages with a rider that if the Award is not implemented within a month from the date of publication of Award in the Gazette of India, and the Management did not pray time to implement the same Award, the Management shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the 31st day of publication of the Award, towards compensation. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The respondent-petitioner claimed to have been employed by the petitioner-Management at Food Storage Depot at Chandauti (Gaya) between 01.10.1981 to 31.07.1989 as a casual employee and he had been stopped from working by verbal orders w.e.f. 01.08.1989 and as such, respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute. However, said dispute was refused to be referred for adjudication by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India vide its order dated 23.03.1993. Accordingly, a writ petition being CWJC No. 2050 of 1995 was preferred by the workman before. Hon’ble Patna High Court. The Hon’ble Patna High Court vide its order dated 04.03.1997 quashed the aforesaid order and directed the Union of India to refer the dispute to the Central Industrial Tribunal. Pursuant to order dated 04.03.1997 passed in CWJC No. 2050 of 1995, an industrial dispute was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad with the following reference: “(i) Whether the action of the Management, Food Corporation of India, Patna in not regularizing the service of Shri Pradeep Kumar, ex-casual employee of Food Corporation of India, chandauti (Gaya) is legal and justified, if not, to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date ?” 4. Upon receipt of the same, the learned Tribunal registered the case as Ref. Upon receipt of the same, the learned Tribunal registered the case as Ref. No. 178 of 1997 and issued notices upon the respective parties to submit their written statement, rejoinder, etc. Upon receipt of the notice and written statement of the workman, the petitioner-Management appeared before the learned Tribunal and filed their written statement-cum-rejoinder. 5. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties at length and after perusing the documents and evidences brought on record, vide Award dated 05.05.2014 directed petitioner-Management to regularize the services of the respondent against a regular post at once without giving any back wages and if the Award is not implemented within a month from the date of publication of Award in the Gazette of India, and the Management did not pray for time to implement the Award, the Management shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the 31st day of publication of the Award, towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Management has been constrained to knock the door of this Court, challenging the Award dated 05.05.2014. 6. At the very outset, Mr. Ranjan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submits that as the workman has reached the age of superannuation at the time of Award itself and as such, for the ends of justice, it would be better if the Management offers one time settlement to the workman. In this regard, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Askhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr., reported in 2016 (1) SCC 521 . He further submits that this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction upon the petitioner-Management to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs), as the Award of learned Tribunal was passed in the year, 2015 itself, wherein it was clearly held that if the Award is not implemented within a month from the date of publication of Award in the Gazette of India, and the Management did not pray for time to implement the Award, the Management shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from the 31st day of publication of the Award, towards compensation and taking this into consideration, compensation amount comes to Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs) after lapse of 5 years, as nothing has been paid to the workman as yet. 7. On the other hand, Mr. 6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lakhs) after lapse of 5 years, as nothing has been paid to the workman as yet. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner-Management vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent and submits that the workman is neither entitled for regularization of his services nor any compensation as he was not the employee of the Management and he has worked continuously under the Contractor. However, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that as per the direction of this Court vide order dated 10.08.2020, the Management is ready to sort out the dispute by giving a lump sum amount to the workman and if any reasonable amount is fixed by this Hon’ble Court, the Management is ready to pay the same. 9. Be that as it may, since the parties are ready to sort out the dispute by way of one time settlement, it would be appropriate for the ends of justice to devise way for amicable settlement in fixing reasonable amount of compensation. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Askhilesh Kumar Khare & Anr., reported in (2016) 1) SCC 521, wherein in para 17, 18 & 19, it has been held that: “17. The respondents were merely casual workers and they do not have any vested right to be regularized against the posts. The High Court fell in error in affirming the award passed by the Labour Court directing regularization. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the respondents were out of employment for more than twenty years and now they are overaged and cannot seek for regular appointment, in our view, the interest of justice will be subserved if the judgment of the High Court is modified to the extent by directing payment of monetary compensation for the damages to the respondents. 18. In considering the violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Shetty, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126 and after referring to the various decisions, this Court held that the relief by way of back wages is not automatic and compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice and it reads as under: (SCC pp 127-128, para 2-4) …….. 19. Shankar Shetty, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126 and after referring to the various decisions, this Court held that the relief by way of back wages is not automatic and compensation instead of reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of justice and it reads as under: (SCC pp 127-128, para 2-4) …….. 19. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned judgment of the High Court is modified and keeping in view the fact that the respondents are facing hardship on account of pending litigation for more than two decades and the fact that some of the respondents are overaged and thus have lost the opportunity to get a job elsewhere, interest of justice would be met by directing the appellant University to pay compensation of Rs. Four lakhs to each of the respondents. …. 11. In view of the fact that the workman-respondent has worked for almost 9 years, even the management failed to prove that the concerned workman was not the employee of the Management and not a single penny has been paid to him from the date of Award, the impugned Award is modified to the extent that respondent-workman is entitled for a lump sum amount of Rs. Six lakhs only as one time settlement. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the petitioner-management to pay the amount of Rs. Six Lakhs as one time settlement to the respondent-workman. The said amount shall be paid, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the said amount is not paid within aforesaid time frame, it will carry interest of 10 percent per month. 13. Let the LCR be transmitted back to concerned court below/Tribunal.