JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waves service of rule on behalf of respondents. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the award of the Labour Court, Junagadh in LCJ No. 02 of 2011. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made two fold prayers while challenging the award of the Labour Court. Firstly, claiming reinstatement with full back wages and in alternative lump-sum compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had started working as a Computer Operator on daily wage basis with the respondent-Forest Department in the year 1998 and had continued till 01.01.2006 and without any written notice or following the provision of Industrial Dispute and particularly Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) petitioner’s services were terminated. It is submitted that at the relevant time the petitioner was getting monthly wages of Rs. 2100/-. Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court to the finding of the Labour Court which has accepted the fact that the petitioner has worked from 1998 to 2006 and in most of the years, had completed 240 days and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to a notice as provided under Section 25B of the Act before being terminated. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that through there was nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had stopped working with the Forest Department and had joined ICICI Bank, the Labour Court has proceeded on presumption of petitioner having worked with ICICI Bank as the petitioner is not denied. It is submitted that it was for the respondents to establish on record their contention of the petitioner working with another institution only thereafter, the burden to shift on the petitioner. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in group of petition in case of Chanchiben Shivabhai Waghela vs. Presiding Officer in Special Civil Application No. 5622 of 2020 and allied matters to claim compensation against the wrongful termination of service. It is submitted that in the aforesaid, the Court has also considered the aspect of delay in raising the dispute and in view of delay itself, the Court has proceeded to award compensation rather than reinstatement. It is submitted that in the aforesaid, the Court has also considered the aspect of delay in raising the dispute and in view of delay itself, the Court has proceeded to award compensation rather than reinstatement. It is submitted that similar modality be adopted in case of the petitioner as well. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has opposed the grant of petition by justifying the order of the Labour Court and submitted that the delay has occurred as the petitioner was terminated in the year 2006, whereas the petitioner has filed reference only in the year 2011 i.e. after a period of 06 years. 6. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had continuously representing his case to the Department for coming back on duty, but the same was never answered. 7. The Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. From the evidence, which is appreciated by the Labour Court, the conclusion arrived by the Labour Court that the petitioner had joined in the year 1998 and had continued till 2006. This is based on the evidence in the form of mark 18/3, muster role maintained by the Department. In that view of the matter, the Court found that from 1998 to 2006 on each of the year, the petitioner had completed more than 240 days except for in the year 1998. 8. The Labour Court has held on facts that the petitioner was working in the ICICI Bank and therefore, had stopped coming to attend his duty with the respondent-Department and hence, he cannot claim reinstatement or compensation. It is observed that the contention was raised by the respondent Department that the petitioner had taken a job with ICICI Bank on 07.01.2006 at Vadodara. Such contention was taken both in written submission as well as evidence of the witness on behalf of the respondent. The Court has held that in view of non-denial of this aspect by the petitioner, in his reply, the fact of the petitioner having joined duty with ICICI Bank, is established. Such contention was taken both in written submission as well as evidence of the witness on behalf of the respondent. The Court has held that in view of non-denial of this aspect by the petitioner, in his reply, the fact of the petitioner having joined duty with ICICI Bank, is established. In the opinion of the Court, the issue of petitioner having joined ICICI Bank could not be said to have been established on the basis of an evidence as it was only on the basis of deposition of the representative of the respondent Department that such contention was raised, but was not backed with any documentary evidence like appointment letter, salary slip etc. When the contention is with regard to joining of ICICI Bank, which is a public limited company, obviously, any employment of an individual with ICICI Bank, will have some documents including interview call letter, appointment letter, salary slip etc. In absence of any such document, the Labour Court has committed an error in accepting the say of the representative of the respondent Department that the petitioner is gainfully employed somewhere else. 9. To that extent, the award passed by the Labour Court needs to be interfered with. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the modality adopted by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5622 of 2020 and allied matters, in oral judgment dated 08.08.2022, wherein the delay of 13 years in raising an industrial dispute was considered and compensation was granted to the concerned workman. Accordingly, the Court deems if fit to partly allowed the petition by modifying the award of the Labour Court to the extent of grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakhs as a full and final compensation towards all claims of the petitioner in connection with his employment with the respondent-Department. 11. The aforesaid amount of compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs be paid by the Department to the petitioner as expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of his order. The petition stands partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.