ORDER : 1. By way of the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 30.11.2018, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as “the Labour Court”), whereby a reference made by the State Government at the instance of the respondent-workman (Ganesha Ram), has been disposed of in the manner that the workman (Ganesha Ram) was entitled for a lump-sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) in lieu of reinstatement. 2. The facts appertain for the present purposes are that the workman (Ganesha Ram) had worked as a daily wage worker with Forest Department from the year 1988 to 1993. As the services of workman (Ganesha Ram) were retrenched, he preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1017/1993. The said writ petition later on came to be disposed of while giving a liberty to the workman to raise an industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court. Whereafter, the workman approached the State Government for making a reference and the reference came to be made by the State Government on 06.06.2007. 3. In pursuance of the reference aforesaid made by the State Government, a labour case being case No.11/2008 (23/2014) was registered before the learned Labour Court, Bikaner. 4. The learned Labour Court, while categorically recording the finding that the workman (Ganesha Ram) had worked for more than four years, held the retrenchment of the workman illegal, as mandatory provisions of law were not followed. However, while holding so, instead of directing the reinstatement of the workman, a lump-sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/-in lieu of reinstatement was ordered to be paid by the State/Forest Department so also with a stipulation that in case the amount aforesaid is not paid within a period of two months from the date of the award, an interest @ 9% per annum shall be paid. 5. First writ petition (SBCWP No.7849/2019) has been filed by the State whereas, the second petition (SBCWP No.4385/2019) has been preferred by the Workman with a contention that the Labour Court ought to have ordered for reinstatement. 6. Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department arguing the first writ petition submitted that the learned Labour Court has erred in awarding such exorbitant amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement. 7. 6. Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Forest Department arguing the first writ petition submitted that the learned Labour Court has erred in awarding such exorbitant amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement. 7. He submitted that the learned Labour Court has committed an error in recording a finding that the workman had illegally been retrenched. He lastly submitted that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-awarded as lump-sum compensation is excessive. 8. Mr. Jasol, submitted that the ground for workman’s removal was lack of funds with the Department, therefore, the State/Forest Department was justified in retrenching the workman. 9. Mr. S.S. Nirban, learned counsel for the workman, on the other hand, argued that the learned Labour Court has appreciated the facts and evidence on record in detail and has recorded a finding that the workman had worked for more than four years and such finding of fact cannot be gone into in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. He argued that the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court is infallible and the same be not interfered with. 11. Pressing his writ petition, Mr. Nirban, learned counsel argued that having recorded a finding that retrenchment was illegal, the Labour Court ought to have directed reinstatement of the workman. Alternatively, while submitting that the lump-sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/-is rather on the lower side, learned counsel for the workman relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal decided on 11.12.2013 reported in (AIR 2014 SCW 258), on the basis whereof, this Court has passed the order granting lump-sum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, considering the inflation. 12. It was also argued by Mr. Jasol, in rejoinder, that at the time of retrenchment, the compensation in accordance with the law was given to the workman. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal the material available on record. 14. So far as Mr. Jasol’s contention on merit of the award that on account of lack of funds, the services of workman were dispensed with, is considered, it can be a valid reason for retrenching the workman, but then the mandate of statutory provisions has to be followed. 15. 14. So far as Mr. Jasol’s contention on merit of the award that on account of lack of funds, the services of workman were dispensed with, is considered, it can be a valid reason for retrenching the workman, but then the mandate of statutory provisions has to be followed. 15. An argument has been advanced that at the time of retrenchment, compensation was paid to the workman, but on perusal of the award, it is revealed that it is bare assertion and is not supported by any evidence. 16. Such being the position, this Court is of the view that both the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the State, in the present writ petition, are untenable. 17. It is to be noted that by a common reference dated 06.06.2007, the case of the present workman as well as petitioners in connected matters (viz. Phool Singh and Narpat Singh) came to be decided by the learned Labour Court by award dated 28/30.11.2018. 18. Pursuant to the query posed by the Court, learned counsel for the State, after inquiry at his level, submitted that no writ petition has been filed against the other two awards passed in the case of Narpat Singh and Phool Singh. 19. In the opinion of this Court, when the impugned award has been passed in case of all three employees in similar facts and circumstances and in furtherance of a common reference, the State cannot resort to challenge the award passed only in present workman’s case, while accepting the same qua the others. 20. In this view of the matter, the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court that the workman -Ganesha Ram has been illegally retrenched turns out to be a complete finding of fact with no perversity therein. Further, the quantum of compensation that has been awarded by the learned Labour Court is justified, given the fact that the workman -Ganesha Ram has worked for more than four years and he has taken up the remedy, immediately after the impugned order, by way of filing writ petition before this Court in the year 1993. Whereafter, the workman -Ganesha Ram was relegated to avail the remedy under the Act of 1947. Thereafter, the reference was made in the year 2007 and it was because of the procedural delay, the reference ultimately came to be decided by the learned Labour Court on 30.11.2018. 21. Whereafter, the workman -Ganesha Ram was relegated to avail the remedy under the Act of 1947. Thereafter, the reference was made in the year 2007 and it was because of the procedural delay, the reference ultimately came to be decided by the learned Labour Court on 30.11.2018. 21. This Court is of the view that the workman has been litigating for more than 25 years and in the backdrop of such fact situation, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-that has been awarded by the learned Labour Court in the year 2018 cannot be said to be excessive in any manner. But since interest @ 9% has been awarded by the Labour Court, it will compensate the workman for the slightly lesser amount. 22. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award. 23. These writ petitions are, thus, dismissed. 24. It is to be noted that by virtue of the interim order dated 02.09.2020 passed in (SBCWP No.7849/2020), the effect and operation of the award dated 30.11.2018 was partially stayed, subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to the workman. 25. Consequential to dismissal of writ petitions, it will be required of the State to deposit remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/-and the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of award with the learned Labour Court on or before 31.12.2023. 26. The workman shall be entitled to claim the said amount from the learned Labour Court, in accordance with law. 27. Stay petitions also stand disposed of.