JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against an order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 5385/2011. 3. The husband of the petitioner, while working as a daily-wage employee under the respondents, died-in-harness on 03.06.1988. The petitioner was thereafter engaged as daily-wager on compassionate ground and such engagement started from 01.08.1988. The service of the petitioner was discontinued on 28.02.1995 and it appears that an order of termination dated 08.03.1995 was passed by the respondent No. 3. 4. The petitioner having raised a dispute, a reference was made to the Labour Court, Korba to decide whether the termination of the petitioner was legal and justified, and if not, what directions could be issued to the respondents. The Labour Court, by award dated 09.12.2010, answered the reference in the negative holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as she had not been able to establish that she was in continuous employment for a period of more than 240 days immediately before the discontinuance from service. The Labour Court had, however, recorded a finding that the petitioner had worked as a daily-wage earner from 01.08.1988 to 28.02.1995. 5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid award by filing writ petition out of which the present appeal arises. 6. The learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the action and order of discontinuance is per se contrary to provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act of 1947). But taking note of the fact that the petitioner had put in only 6½ years of service and at the same time was out of employment for the last 20 years, considered it inappropriate to modify the award of the Labour Court to the extent of granting reinstatement in service. Accordingly, the finding of the Labour Court that termination of the petitioner was justified was set aside and it was held that compensation in lieu of reinstatement should be offered to the petitioner as full and final settlement of the award. Taking that view, a lump-sum amount of Rs. Accordingly, the finding of the Labour Court that termination of the petitioner was justified was set aside and it was held that compensation in lieu of reinstatement should be offered to the petitioner as full and final settlement of the award. Taking that view, a lump-sum amount of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation was awarded and the same was directed to be paid within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 7. Reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge on the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Bhurumal, (2014) 7 SCC 177 , Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi vs. Hindalco Industries Limited, (2014) 11 SCC 85 and District Development Officer and Another vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298. 8. Before the Labour Court, the age of the petitioner was shown as 45 years on 09.12.2010 and while filing the writ petition on 09.09.2011, her age is shown as 46 years. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement, therefore, has become more or less academic as the petitioner has attained the age of 58-59 years. 9. The question that arises for consideration is whether the amount of Rs. 75,000/- granted as lump-sum compensation is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In Bhurumal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that most of the documents produced by the daily-wager were relatable to two years. It was noticed in the said judgment that in BSNL vs. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558 , an award of Rs. 2 Lakhs for each of the workmen was granted when they had worked for merely 240 days. The respondents in Bhurumal (supra) having worked for a longer period, the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded a compensation of Rs. 3 Lakhs. 11. In Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank vs. Panchamlal Yadav, Civil Appeal No. 9792/2010, decided on 13.07.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the employee who was on dailywages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the finding of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short, Tribunal) wherein it was recorded that the daily-wage employee could not produce any evidence to show that he had continuously worked for five years in the appellant-Bank. 5 Lakhs to the employee who was on dailywages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the finding of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (for short, Tribunal) wherein it was recorded that the daily-wage employee could not produce any evidence to show that he had continuously worked for five years in the appellant-Bank. It was also noted that the Tribunal had held that the respondent could not prove that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. 12. In the instant case, the petitioner was offered engagement as a daily-wage earner on compassionate basis and, admittedly, she had worked for about 6½ years. We are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs. 75,000/- granted by the learned Single Judge is very much on the lower side. In the attending facts and circumstances, and particularly taking note of the judgments referred to hereinabove, we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs as lump-sum payment towards compensation would meet the ends of justice. 13. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to make payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the appellant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge i.e. 31.03.2021 till the payment is made. 14. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the above extent. 15. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.