ORDER : Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. Both these petitions arise out of common award dated 15.05.2012 passed by Labour Court, Bharatpur in LCR No.88/1996 whereby termination of services of the deceased petitioner (herein after referred as 'workman') has been held to be invalid and the respondent - employer has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. 2. Facts in brief of the case are that the workman in his claim petition filed before the Labour Court averred that he was engaged on the post of Class-IV employee on daily wages on 01.12.1988 and worked continuously till 01.01.1990 but without serving any notice, his services were terminated in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1947'). In the claim petition the workman prayed for declaring his termination as null and void in view of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 with the prayer for reinstatement in service. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent - employer submitted that the workman was kept for short period and thereafter he abandoned the services and he has not done work more than 240 days and he hardly worked for 160 days. It was also pleaded by the respondents that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1990 and the dispute was raised after a lapse of six years in the year 1996. 4. After hearing the arguments of both sides, the Labour Court passed an award on 15.05.2012, whereby it was held that the order of termination of the petitioner was not valid and the same was in violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. But instead of issuing direction for reinstatement of the petitioner, the respondents were directed to pay lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the workman in lieu of the reinstatement and an additional cost of Rs.5,000/- for litigation was also awarded to the workman. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the workman as well as the respondent - employer have approached this Court challenging the award. 6. It is worthy to note here that during the pendency of the writ petition, the workman expired on 16.07.2020. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the workman as well as the respondent - employer have approached this Court challenging the award. 6. It is worthy to note here that during the pendency of the writ petition, the workman expired on 16.07.2020. An application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC was submitted by the legal representatives of the deceased workman on record for substituting them as legal representatives of the deceased. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2022 and the amended cause title was ordered to be taken on record. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is well settled law decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that if the workman claims that there is a violation of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and if he proves it before the Court by leading evidence that the employer has violated the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act of 1947, then the Court should pass appropriate orders in this regard for payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 9. Perusal of the record indicates that the workman produced evidence which proves the fact that he worked with the respondents w.e.f. 01.12.1988 till 01.01.1990 and this fact was not rebutted by the respondent - employer by producing any evidence. Hence, Labour Court has rightly held that the workman has worked with the respondent - employer for more that 240 days. 10. Now the question comes to the Court for consideration of this Court is that whether the compensation awarded by the Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- is sufficient or it needs enhancement by this Court. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests v. Sharfuddin passed in DB Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018 decided on 20.08.2019 has held in para Nos.3 and 4 as under: "3. We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar v. Data Ram and Ors.-D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar v. Data Ram and Ors.-D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be Rs.1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been Rs.2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be Rs.3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair. 4. Having considered the overall circumstances and the given facts of this case which clearly shows that the workman was in service for one year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- (approximately equivalent to two years back wages) based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today." 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the proposition laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy Conservator of Forests (supra), this Court is of the view that the directions issued by the Labour Court does not require any interference of this Court. 12. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has worked more that one year and less than two years, so the amount of compensation awarded to the workman of Rs.1,00,000/- is not sufficient. The workman is entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as he has worked for more than one year and less than two years in lieu of his reinstatement. 13. Accordingly, the respondent - employer is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- adjusting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal representatives of the workman as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, as observed above, within a period of two months from today. 14. The award passed by the Labour Court dated 15.05.2012 stands modified in the above terms. 15. Both writ petitions stand disposed of. 16. All pending applications, if any stand disposed of.