JUDGMENT Kshitij Shailendra, J. Heard Shri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri V.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 20.12.2016 published on 30.01.2017 passed by the respondent no.1- Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Ghaziabad whereby the labour court awarded a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the respondent no.2 as one time compensation in lieu of his reinstatement and backwages in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. This Court while entertaining the writ petition passed the following order dated 24.3.2017:- "By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned award dated 20.12.2016 published on 30.1.2017 passed by the first respondent in I.D. No.19/2002. Record in question reflects that the second respondent-workman was engaged as daily wager in Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur on 17.3.1988 and his services were terminated on 01.8.1990. He raised an industrial dispute for reinstatement in service. The Labour Court passed the award in question on 20.12.2016 and ordered for reinstatement of the respondent workman and for payment of Rs. 2 Lac as compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent workman was appointed on daily wage basis on 17.3.1988 and the said appointment was purely in temporary basis. He had never worked for 240 days in a calender year. The industrial dispute was filed after more than 10 years from the date of termination of services. The respondent workman failed to establish that he was working in the Nagar Palika Parishad w.e.f. 17.3.1988 to 31.7.1990. The Labour Court in most arbitrary manner ordered for reinstatement of services of the respondent workman. The matter requires consideration. Shri V.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. The petitioner will have one week thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. List thereafter. Till the next date of listing the impugned award dated 20.12.2016 shall be kept in abeyance. " 4. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and, therefore, this writ petition is being finally decided. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 was engaged as a Peon on 08.10.1987 and his services were terminated on 27.01.1989. A highly belated claim was made in the year 1998 before the lower court. " 4. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and, therefore, this writ petition is being finally decided. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 was engaged as a Peon on 08.10.1987 and his services were terminated on 27.01.1989. A highly belated claim was made in the year 1998 before the lower court. He further submits that on the date of termination of his services, the respondent no.2 had not completed 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, the findings of the lower court that there was violation of Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act-1947 (herein after referred to as 'the Act-1947') is incorrect. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that there is no limitation prescribed under the Act-1947 for making a claim. He has also referred to 'para-9' of the impugned award where the lower court has recorded that when the objection was taken in respect of delay, the Conciliation Officer, after condoning the delay, referred the matter further and, thereafter, a reference to the labour court was made. He further submits that labour court has recorded lawful finding while computing 240 days working in a calendar year by referring to the judgement of Uttaranchal High Court as well as Apex Court wherein it has been held that while computing 240 days in a calendar year, Sundays and declared holidays would be counted. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that there being no provision under the Act-1947 barring the claim made by the workman and, moreover, in view of the findings recorded regarding condonation of delay, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim should have been dismissed on the ground of delay cannot be accepted. 8. Insofar as, the second part of the award is concerned i.e. 240 days, this Court finds that the finding of the labour court does not suffer from any illegality. The award of the labour court in this regard is quoted here-in-below:- 9. Even otherwise, the reinstatement of workman was not ordered and in view of the admitted position of fact that there was no notice prior of termination of services of respondent no.2, the labour court has not committed violation of provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act-1947. 10. The award of the labour court in this regard is quoted here-in-below:- 9. Even otherwise, the reinstatement of workman was not ordered and in view of the admitted position of fact that there was no notice prior of termination of services of respondent no.2, the labour court has not committed violation of provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act-1947. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. The respondent no.2 may apply for execution of the award before the appropriate forum/authority. The execution proceedings shall be concluded within a period of four months from the date of production of appropriate application before it.