GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA, J. CM Nos.4651 of 2019 & 238-LPA of 2020 1. Present applications have been filed for condoning the delay of 298 days in filing the appeal. 2. The main cause of delay propagated in the applications is that the clerk of the earlier counsel who prepared the writ petition has misplaced the files, therefore the delay has taken place. 3. Present applications for condoning the delay of 298 days are supported by an affidavit of the legal representative of the deceased workman. 4. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion, that sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay of 298 days in both the appeals. Applications are allowed. Delay of 298 days in filing the appeals is condoned. LPA-2029-2019 and LPA-82-2020 5. This order shall dispose of two Letter Patent Appeals bearing LPA No.2029 of 2019 and LPA No. 82 of 2020. For convenience, facts are being taken from LPA No.2029 of 2019. 6. Consideration in the present letter patent appeals is to the order dated 11.12.2018 of the learned Single Judge in CWP No.21821 of 2013 wherein the award of the labour court dated 12.07.2013 (Annexure P-6) was modified and reinstatement being not possible on account of death of the workman on 19.02.2018, compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs was awarded. Admittedly, the awarded amount has already been received by the legal representatives of the workman. Writ petition filed by the employer was also dismissed vide same order. 7. Labour Court had directed reinstatement and declined the backwages as such due to which the management was also aggrieved by the said award. Learned Single Judge had noticed that workman had served as a Peon-cum-Water Carrier from 17.04.2009 to 13.01.2010 and thus, keeping in view the fact of 240 days as such has been completed as required in Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) then the benefit of 25-F of the Act was applied. Reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. Vs. Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136 and B.S.N.L. VS. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 and to come to the conclusion that automatic reinstatement could not be the right as such. Reliance was placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development Corporation & Anr. Vs. Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136 and B.S.N.L. VS. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 and to come to the conclusion that automatic reinstatement could not be the right as such. Reliance was also placed upon the other judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BSNL vs. Man Singh (2012) 1 SCC 558 and Municipal Council, Dina Nagar vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur & Another, 2015(1) RSJ 765 wherein it was held that compensation as such be paid instead of reinstatment. It was also noticed that there was a charge of fraud against the workman for seeking employment fraudulently for the second spell of service and therefore, there it is also a stigma cast for the family on which account compensation can be granted. 8. It has also come on record that initially the workman was appointed as Gunman in the security set up of Bank on 26.12.2008 through the service provider and relieved on 17.04.2009 when it was found that he was not an ex-serviceman which was the requirement. In such circumstances Rs.2.5 lakhs has been given. Right as such for reinstatement was on the basis of second spell of employment which was less than a year and in such circumstance the compensation has been rightly awarded as it has now been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that for short period especially when the services not in the form of regular appointment, reinstatement would not be the correct relief and compensation would be sufficient as such to condone the illegal act of management as they had not followed the statutory provisions. 9. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge had not erred in any manner while converting the reinstatement to grant of compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs for the brief period the workman was in service of the 240 days preceeding his date of retrenchment but which was sufficient to give statutory protection. We thus, do not find any merit in the present appeals, therefore, the same are hereby dismissed. Appeals dismissed.