JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 05.09.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 417 of 1999, whereby the petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent-workman with 25% back wages. 2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award is required to be set aside, since the Labour Court has misdirected itself in ordering the reinstatement, as the department of the petitioner-Corporation i.e. the Bus Traffic Department was already closed down and is now run by a private entrepreneur of Bhavnagar city. He has submitted that in such a circumstance, the reinstatement of the respondent is not possible. It is further submitted that since there was no other work available for the respondent-workman and there was no need of driver, he was not engaged in work and hence, the Labour Court could not have passed the order of reinstatement. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the findings recorded by the Labour Court. It is submitted by him that the violation of Section 25F of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the "I.D. Act"), has not been proved, since it is not proved that the workman had completed 240 days in any of the year, however the retrenchment has been set aside on the ground of violation of provisions of Section 25G of the I.D. Act. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, has finally submitted that in case, the Court decides to confirm the award, at the most, a reasonable compensation can be granted to the respondent-workman. 3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Vishal Thakker, appearing for the respondent-workman has submitted that the award needs not be required any interference, as the Labour Court, after appreciating the documentary evidence, has concluded that the termination of the respondent-workman was in violation of the provisions of Section 25G and H of the I.D. Act. It is further submitted that the Labour Court has in fact perused the seniority list, which was produced before it, and after examination of the seniority position, finding has been given that the workmen, who were at serial No. 19 and 46, were retained in service, whereas the respondent-workman was terminated and hence, the award may not be interfered with. 4. 4. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties to the lis. I have also perused the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. 5. It is an established fact that the termination of the respondent-workman is not found in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, as it is established from the record that the respondent-workman did not work for 240 days. In the years 1987 to 1988, he had worked for 149 days. No evidence is produced on record that the respondent-workman was continuously employed by the petitioner. It is also coming on record that the termination was in fact affected because of closing of the Bus Transport Department. 6. After recording the finding that the termination was not in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court has held that the termination of the respondent-workman was in violation of the provisions of Section 25G and H of the I.D. Act. It is recorded that the seniority list of the drivers was produced by the respondent, in which, the name of the respondent has shown at serial No. 7 and his appointment date is 20.10.1987, whereas his juniors, who were at serial No. 19 and 46, were appointed on 10.01.1988 and 05.10.1988, were retained in service. In the cross-examination, the concerned officer, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had admitted that the juniors were retained. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings arrived at by the Labour Court with regard to violation of the provisions of Section 25G and H of the I.D. Act. However, the issue will remain, whether the Labour Court could have directed reinstatement with 25% of the back wages. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, since it is not proved that the respondent-workman was in continuous service which is defined under Section 25(B) of the I.D. Act, and it is also not proved that the respondent-workman had worked for 240 days in a year, the Labour Court should have ordered compensation instead of reinstatement. The only year, in which number of days has been proved from October, 1987 to August, 1988, he worked for 149 days. It is also not in dispute that the department, in which the respondent-workman was working, has been closed down. The only year, in which number of days has been proved from October, 1987 to August, 1988, he worked for 149 days. It is also not in dispute that the department, in which the respondent-workman was working, has been closed down. In these circumstances, casual engagement of the workman with the petitioner from 20.10.1987 to his oral termination on 20.07.1996 i.e. 9 years of tenure and passage of more than 21 years from termination, it would be apposite to award the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- instead of reinstatement. The petitioner is directed to award the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards full and final settlement. The amount of the compensation shall be paid to the respondent-workman within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 8. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of accordingly.